Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This summer, the Supreme Court issued a pair of important employer-friendly decisions. In Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556, 133 S. Ct. 2434, 2439 (Jun. 24, 2013), the Court resolved the question of who qualifies as a “supervisor” in a case in which an employee asserted a Title VII claim for workplace harassment. And in Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, No. 12-484, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2522-23 (June 24, 2013), the Court clarified the standard of “causation” required to prove retaliation under Title VII.
The question addressed in Vance is important to employers because employer liability for harassment under Title VII may depend on whether the harasser is a supervisor. Employers are strictly liable for harassing conduct by supervisors that results in tangible employment action. But an employer can avail itself of certain defenses if the harassment is by a non-supervisory co-worker. Thus, whether the harasser is a supervisor is an important preliminary question in any suit alleging harassment under Title VII. Fortunately for employers, the Supreme Court construed “supervisor” narrowly to include individuals empowered to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline other employees. While this clarified standard should assist employers in defending harassment claims, there are still steps employers should take to reduce their risk of liability.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.