Supreme Court narrows definition of "supervisor" under Title VII

Lexology
Proskauer Rose LLP

Harold Brody, Enzo Der Boghossian, Anthony J Oncidi, Kenneth Sulzer and Mark Theodore

USA

July 17 2013

Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3155228 (2013)

The United States Supreme Court held that an employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious employer liability under Title VII only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against an employee. Following alleged harassment by a superior, Maetta Vance, a Ball State University ("BSU") dining services employee, filed suit alleging hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. Vance asserted vicarious liability on the part of BSU based on the actions of another BSU employee named Saundra Davis. BSU moved for summary judgment, arguing that because Davis was not Vance's supervisor, it could not be held vicariously liable for her actions.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=41caae15-eb7d-48ba-b501-015648f6214e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2013-07-19&utm_term=

Recent pro-employer U.S. Supreme Court decisions do not mean that employers should relax

Lexology
Andrews Kurth LLP
Elizabeth A. Campbell and Marc D. Katz 
USA

July 16 2013

 

The United States Supreme Court may have tightened the standards for employer liability for “supervisor” harassment and “retaliation,” but this does not mean that employers should relax.

Perhaps lost in the shadow of the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. affirmative action case, the Voting Rights decision (Shelby County v. Holder), DOMA (United States v. Windsor) and the Prop 8 rulings (Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al.), the United States Supreme Court decided two cases on June 24, 2013, that clarified the legal analysis that will apply in Title VII cases.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=31c2a154-7701-4285-8363-46bbee6e1704&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2013-07-19&utm_term=

Employee must prove that illegal retaliation was the "but for" cause of adverse job action under Title VII

Lexology
Proskauer Rose LLP

Harold Brody, Enzo Der Boghossian, Anthony J Oncidi, Kenneth Sulzer and Mark Theodore

USA

July 17 2013

 

University of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3155234 (2013)

The United States Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff asserting retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") must prove that illegal retaliation was the "but for" cause of the employer's adverse action. In a five-to-four decision, the Court rejected the lower court's decision applying a less burdensome standard, which required merely that a plaintiff show retaliation was one "motivating factor," among others, resulting in the adverse job action.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=20a91144-6dab-48c1-b9dc-e1a7e61939d0&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2013-07-19&utm_term=

Employment Non-Discrimination Act passes out of Senate committee

Lexology
Jackson Lewis LLP

Michelle E. Phillips and Garen E. Dodge

USA  

July 11 2013

 

 

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (“HELP”) Committee has approved a bill that would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The July 10th, 15-7 vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”) (S. 815), introduced on April 25, 2013, may be an indication of how the measure will fare in the full Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he expects the Senate to take up S. 815 later this year.

Prior efforts to pass ENDA have failed; however, in light of the June 26 U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decisions in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth, et al. v. Perry, proponents may feel the time is ripe for ENDA. (See our article, U.S. Supreme Court Rules Legally-Married Same-Sex Spouses Entitled to Federal Recognition and Lifts California Ban on Same-Sex Marriages.)

 

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=53777a94-d4c8-41a9-9da4-78310af1325f&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2013-07-19&utm_term=

Affirmative Action Score: Advantage: U. of Texas

The National Law Journal
As hypothetical memo shows, despite challenger's 7-1 'victory' in Fisher, state schools face little risk.

By Alan B. Morrison

The memo reproduced below arrived in the writer's in-box recently, with no identifiable source. Attorney-Client Confidential Memo From: General Counsel of AnyState University To: President of AnyState University I am following up on your call to me on Monday, when I expressed my opinion that, even though the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Fisher v. Univer­sity of Texas, 7-1, state universities like ours have nothing much to worry about for the time being. I say this not as a constitutional law scholar, but as a long-time litigator. Here's why.


Read more: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202611447001&Affirmative_Action_Score_Advantage_U_of_Texas#ixzz2ZX8xFjTC

AAAA President's Corner

 

My Views on The Trayvon Martin Case

The Trayvon Martin case outcome reinforces how African Americans, in particular African-American males, who are seen as a problem in America, feel about being devalued and marginalized in America.   Equal justice in America has not come as far as some profess since Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have Dream” speech 50 years ago and Lyndon B. Johnson famous speech about affirmative action at Howard University 48 years ago.

Some would say why everything has to come down to race.  I say you damn right it does!  Civil rights organizations are still as relevant as ever.  Look at what has occurred with voter’s rights laws, challenges against diversity and inclusion in employment and education. 

Should African Americans be angry, absolutely!  But this anger must be turned into positive energy and creative responses to social injustice. For example, Stevie Wonder has publicly avowed that he will not perform in Florida again until the “Stand Your Ground” law is discarded.  Florida was the first state to enact this law and now over thirty states have a similar version. 

Cohesive action is required on the part of the civil rights community and the visibly diverse protesters of George Zimmerman’s acquittal, within the confines of the law.  Dr. King was the master of this kind of action through the non-violent approach.  

One thing for sure, racism has always had a purpose in America and race has always been a dividing distraction.  This is where the rubber hits the road and real diverse leadership on racial injustice in America has been fundamentally absent. It’s time they step up or are creatively persuaded to step up.  The conversations about race must become more honest if it is to take us anywhere.  Truth telling about race can no longer be side stepped in the face of America’s increasing diversity.

 

Gregory T. Chambers