- Created on Saturday, 05 May 2012 12:18
In a case of first impression, the U.S. District Court for Connecticut applied the “but-for” causation standard to ADA retaliation claims. Saviano v. Town of Westport, Case No. 3:04-CV-522(RNC) (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2011). This is the first case following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. where the Connecticut District Court was asked to determine if the Gross “but-for” holding applied to ADA retaliation cases. It answered in the affirmative.
- Created on Monday, 06 February 2012 12:18
In a significant case issued last year, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the right to file Title VII retaliation claims to employees, based on their relationship to other employees who directly engaged in protected activity. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, Case No. 09-291 (U.S. January 24, 2011). Historically, only employees who engaged in protected activity were thought to have the right to file retaliation claims.
- Created on Wednesday, 01 April 2009 12:18
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that employees who answer management questions during a Title VII related internal investigation are protected from retaliation under the Act’s “opposition clause.” Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, No. 06-1595 (Jan. 26, 2009).
- Created on Saturday, 01 July 2006 12:18
The U.S. Supreme Court recently made it easier for employees to claim retaliation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Burlington Northern &. Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4895 (June 22, 2006). The Court stated that conduct may be considered retaliatory if a reasonable employee would consider the employer’s actions to be materially adverse, even if those actions do not affect any terms or conditions of employment.
- Created on Saturday, 01 April 2006 12:18
In one of his final decisions before being elevated to the top court, Judge, now Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito wrote an opinion in which the Third Circuit joined a number of other Circuits holding that co-worker retaliation against complainants filing charges of sexual harassment can expose an employer to liability under Title VII. Jensen v. Potter, 435 F.3d 444 (3rd Cir. 2006).