In Butler v. Drive Automobile Industries of America, Inc., the Fourth Circuit joined seven (the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh) other federal appellate courts in holding that multiple companies can each be the "employer" of the same employee under Title VII. In Butler, the appellate court concluded that Drive Automotive was the joint employer of a former factory worker who was hired through a temporary staffing agency,...read more
In a significant ruling for employers everywhere, and particularly those in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, the Fourth Circuit just held that a black female who was subjected to offensive conduct by a customer should have her Title VII harassment claims decided by a jury. With its decision in Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., No. 13-1481 (4th Cir. April 29, 2014), the Fourth Circuit...read more
On August 29th, 201, the court-appointed mediator in the consolidated concussion lawsuits filed against the NFL and other entities announced that the players and the NFL had reached a tentative agreement. The lawsuits, which had been widely reported in the wake of several high profile deaths allegedly linked to concussions suffered while playing football, were filed by over 4,500 retired football players and allege a host of claims. The...read more
The Supreme Court Speaks: Title VII "Supervisors" Must Have The Power To Implement Tangible Employment Actions
In Vance v. Ball State University, in a 5-4 decision issued June 24, 2013, on the same day and by the same majority that decided the Nassar case limiting Title VII retaliation claims to “but for” violations, the U.S. Supreme Court handed employers another victory by defining, precisely and narrowly, who is a “supervisor” for liability purposes in cases of Title VII unlawful harassment. Under Title VII, employer liability for harassment...read more
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.