Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Retaliation Under Title VII
What types of employer conduct can constitute retaliation under Title VII? The answer to that question has changed significantly with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. On June 22, 2006, the Court issued its decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co v. White, expanding protections for employees who allege that they have suffered retaliation after making a complaint of discrimination or harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Previously, employees making retaliation claims under Title VII had to prove they suffered an 'ultimate employment decision' or a 'materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment,' such as a discharge, demotion or loss of pay, in order to state a claim. Now, the Court has adopted a broader standard, holding Title VII prohibits subtler forms of retaliation, that can even include, depending on the factual circumstances, a change in schedule or the failure to invite an employee to lunch.
Burlington Northern Background
According to the Court, the proper approach for evaluating whether an employer's conduct was retaliatory is determining whether a 'reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse.' As the Court explained, this means considering whether the employer's alleged retaliatory act 'might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.' The Court also found that Title VII's anti-retaliation provision is not limited to actions affecting employment or to those occurring at work, and can extend to actions causing harm outside the workplace. The case has been hailed as a victory by employees' rights groups nationwide. (The opinion is available online at www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-259.pdf.)
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?