News & Analysis as of

Damages › Discrimination › Attorney's Fees

Carlton Fields

Florida Appeals Court Decisions Week of August 11 - 15, 2025

Carlton Fields on

U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Huggins v. Manatee Sch Dist - First Amendment, qualified immunity, amending pleadings - Andre v. Clayton Cnty - Atlanta airport random searches, constitutional challenge,...more

Butler Snow LLP

Step-dad’s “slobbery” kiss leads to big trouble for Tennessee employer

Butler Snow LLP on

Under Title VII, an employer can be held liable for retaliation by a non-supervisory co-worker if (1) the conduct is sufficiently severe to dissuade a complaint of discrimination; (2) management was aware of the behavior; and...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

’Tis the Season of Giving, Right?

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

We all think of December as the season of giving. Unfortunately, prevailing defendants in Title VII cases don’t always feel that way. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prevailing plaintiffs enjoy compensatory...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

California Employment Law Update: What’s New for 2014

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on

The California Legislature was unusually active this year. Significantly, California increased the state minimum wage, created new “unfair immigration-related practices,” and expanded protections for whistleblowers. All laws...more

Littler

California Supreme Court Rules "Mixed Motive" Is a Mixed Bag for Employers

Littler on

The California Supreme Court recently clarified the defenses available to employers defending against claims of discrimination. In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. BC341469 (Cal. Feb. 7, 2013), the court ruled that, if a...more

Nossaman LLP

California Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For “Mixed Motive” Defense To Employment Discrimination Claims

Nossaman LLP on

In a partial victory for employers, the California Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. City of Santa Monica that even when an employee proves that a discriminatory motive was a “substantial factor” in an adverse employment...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Supreme Court Holds That Proof That Employer Would Have Made Same Employment Decision Absent Discrimination Precludes...

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court held that where a plaintiff proves that unlawful discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") was a substantial factor motivating her...more

7 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide