In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, an economic crisis that is predicted to be as bad as the great depression, and unrest over racial inequality and police brutality that is giving birth to a global movement for social change, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (Case

Federal law has long prohibited discrimination based on a person’s sex. In recent years, several courts have held that discrimination based on failure to conform to a gender stereotype is a form of prohibited sex-based discrimination. But courts across the country have been more divided about whether those same laws preclude discrimination based on one’s

By:  Chuck Post

In Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court clarified a long open question, “Who is a supervisor under Title VII?” The question is important because employers are directly responsible for employee harassment by a supervisor. In the case of worker harassment of a co-worker, however, employer liability is less direct.

By: James Kachmar

On May 16, 2012, a California Appellate Court issued its ruling in Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group and held that a partner could state a claim for unlawful retaliation against her partnership under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). 


Continue Reading Partnerships Beware! Partners May Have Claims for Unlawful Retaliation under FEHA