You Fired My Dad! Fifth Circuit Rules Title VII Retaliation Ban Does Not Cover Third-Party ClaimRetaliation claims in employment litigation have been on the rise for years. The typical scenario has an employee reporting some sort of alleged discriminatory act, either against them or a coworker, followed by the employer taking an adverse employment action against the reporting employee. We all know that Title VII prohibits retaliation against an employee

Supreme Court Rules Title VII Protects LGBT Employees: What You Need to Know (Help Us Help You to Save Time Reading a Short Novel) This week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII — the main federal anti-discrimination law on the books — prohibits discrimination against employees who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender (LGBT). The decision was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing for the majority.

The opinion is just under 120 pages long, with two

“OK, Boomer” – What Amounts to Actionable Age Discrimination?What does an age discrimination plaintiff have to prove to succeed? Federal employees may have an easier path for proving an age discrimination claim, if we are reading the tea leaves correctly on the Supreme Court’s oral argument in the Babb v. Wilkie case.

Currently, because of the Supreme Court’s Gross v. FBL Financial Services

Exit EEOC? Supreme Court Rules that Charge-Filing Process Is Not Jurisdictional, But It’s Still ImportantIn a case that garnered big headlines, the Supreme Court weighed in yesterday on whether a claimant’s failure to amend her EEOC charge divests the federal court from hearing part of her Title VII claim. While the decision makes some strong statements about the purpose of an EEOC charge in Title VII litigation, it is

Showdown at Title VII Corral: Supreme Court to Weigh in on Sexual Orientation and Transgender DiscriminationIs discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation or transgender status a violation of Title VII? The EEOC previously took the position that Title VII covers those statuses but the Trump administration has not followed suit. Accordingly, as of now, it may depend on where you live.

In 2017 and 2018, the Second,

Fifth Circuit Rejects Title VII Transgender Protection, but Grants Summary Judgment on Other GroundsIn Wittmer v. Phillips 66, Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit wasted no time stating the Fifth Circuit’s position on whether sexual orientation or transgender status are protected classes under Title VII – they are not. Interestingly, however, the defendant did not even raise that as a defense. In fact, the lower court

 The Continuing “Trans-formation” of Title VII: Texas Federal Court Holds Transgender People Have Title VII ProtectionA Texas district court recently held, for the first time in the Fifth Circuit, that transgender people are a protected class under Title VII—but the plaintiff still lost her case. In Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company, the Houston-based federal court relied on recent opinions from the Second and Sixth Circuits to hold that the

Employers beware: An employee does not have to use “magic words” to complain about discrimination for it to lay the basis for a retaliation claim. The Sixth Circuit made this point in a unanimous opinion in the case of Mumm v. Charter Township of Superior.

Sixth Circuit to Employers: No ‘Magic Words’ Make a Sex Discrimination Complaint Title VII Protected ActivityFacts

Susan Mumm complained to her employer, the Township,

Pay the Man! (Or Woman)—But Differently? 11th Circuit Reinstates Sex Discrimination Pay ClaimWhen you promote someone into a position, do you have to pay him what you paid his predecessor? As with so many things – it depends. Can you pay less if the promotee has less experience and a lower prior salary than the predecessor? Maybe. However, if the new promotee is a female replacing a

Ever wonder why the severance agreement that I (or your other favorite employment lawyer) send you says “nothing in this Agreement prevents Employee from filing a charge with the EEOC” (or words to that effect)? I mean, isn’t that the point of the agreement? You pay the employee money, and he or she can’t file