Tag Archives: Title VII

Start Planning Your Workplace Sexual Harassment Trainings Early – The Ins and Outs of the Training Requirements Going into Place in 2020

California employment law is changing once again.  By January 1, 2020, an employer having five or more employees will be required to provide at least one hour of sexual harassment training to all of its employees, once every two years. The training will be required to start within six months of the employee’s assumption of … Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Finds Plaintiff Knowingly Agreed to Arbitration of Title VII Claims

A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). This decision is notable because the applicable dispute resolution policy, outlining the terms of arbitration, was contained within the company’s policy manual and detached from the employee’s signed acknowledgment of … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Adopts “But-For” Causation Test for Title VII Retaliation Cases.

In a welcome decision, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Ctr. v. Nassar, No. 12-484 (June 24, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be established using a “but-for” causation standard, denying the argument asserted by plaintiff and the EEOC that the … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court narrows definition of “supervisor” for Title VII purposes. Will California courts follow?

In Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556 (June 24, 2013), the United States Supreme Court defined “supervisory” authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1962 as requiring the power to make “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a … Continue Reading

California Court Of Appeal Rules Refusal To Cooperate With Company Investigation or Giving False Information To Company Investigator Is Not Protected By FEHA

 A California court of appeal has recently ruled that an employee is not protected by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for refusing to participate in or cooperate with a Company investigation into misconduct. McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., (Cal Ct. App. No. H036597, 1/24/2013). In McGrory, California’s Sixth Appellate District rejected an … Continue Reading
LexBlog