Retail Labor and Employment Law

Retail Labor and Employment Law

News, Updates, and Insights for Retail Employers

Tag Archives: retaliation

Posted on by John M. O'Connor

Second Circuit Extends the Reach of the Cat’s Paw

In employment litigation, plaintiffs often rely on the “cat’s paw” doctrine to hold their employers liable for discriminatory or retaliatory animus of a supervisory employee who influenced, but did not make, the ultimate employment decision.  On August 29, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., greatly extended the reach of the “cat’s paw,” holding that the doctrine could be applied to hold an employer liable for an adverse employment decision that was influenced by the discriminatory or retaliatory animus of a low-level, non-supervisory co-worker.

The plaintiff, an emergency … Continue Reading

Posted on by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Retaliation, ADA Charges Rise – Frank C. Morris, Jr. Quoted in SHRM

Our colleague Frank C. Morris, Jr., a Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Employee Benefits practices, in the firm’s Washington, DC, office, was quoted in “Retaliation, ADA Charges Rise” by Allen Smith.  The article discusses the uptick in retaliation charges which have been filed and includes tips for employers on how to reduce the likelihood that they will get hit with those types of charges.

Following is an excerpt:

ADA cases today are more often about what took place in the interactive process for identifying a reasonable accommodation than about whether a disability is covered by the … Continue Reading

Posted on by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

California’s 2014 Whistleblower Law to Expand Employee Protection

By David Jacobs and Amy B. Messigian

We would like to call your attention to a significant change to the whistleblower statute in California that went into effect on January 1.  The statute, Cal. Lab. Code section 1102.5, has been substantially expanded beyond its prior form to now protect employees from retaliation for making internal complaints or even potential complaints about suspected violations of federal, state or local law.

California previously protected employees from retaliation for reporting reasonably suspected violations of state or federal laws to a government agency. The new law also extends whistleblower protections to … Continue Reading

Posted on by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Supreme Court Decision Sets High Bar for Establishing Retaliation Claims Under Title VII

Our colleague Amy B. Messigian at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Decision Sets High Bar for Establishing Retaliation Claims Under Title VII” on the Health Employment and Labor blog, and we think retail employers will be interested.

Following is an excerpt:

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, one of two employment-related opinions issued on Monday by the Supreme Court, a narrow majority held that a retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved according to a strict but for causation standard. Under such a … Continue Reading

Posted on by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

New Jersey Appellate Court Upholds Immunity for Health Care Entity Responding to a Reference Request

by Daniel R. Levy

On December 1, 2011, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed dismissal of a whistle-blowing and defamation lawsuit based in part on application of the New Jersey Health Care Professional Responsibility and Reporting Enhancement Act. In Senisch v. Carlino, A-6218-09T3 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 1, 2011), the court held that a health care entity which had reported negative, but truthful, information to another health care entity about a former health care professional’s termination of employment could not be liable for doing so.

In this case, the plaintiff was employed as a physician’s assistant … Continue Reading

Posted on by Peter M. Panken

Why Doesn’t the Supreme Court Provide a Pathway Through the Morass of Retaliation Law?

The EEOC has reported that it receives more charges of retaliation than any other type of employment discrimination charge, and that there are thousands of cases involving allegations of illegal retaliation filed every year.  Retaliation is often prohibited by statute, but the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of actionable retaliation lately, holding that there was a cause of action for retaliation even though the statute in question did not expressly cover the situation at issue.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) prohibits discrimination against an employee “because such employee has filed any complaint” under the Act.  In Kasten v.… Continue Reading

.