Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Snap Inc. and California’s Civil Rights Department have reached a $15-million settlement to resolve allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation at the Santa Monica-based ...
Case history; Prior: White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2004). Holding; The anti-retaliation provision (42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a)) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.
Doyle, [3] the Supreme Court established a standard of but-for causation for claims of official retaliation against speech. However, in the 2006 case of Hartman v. Moore, [4] the Supreme Court established an exception for claims of retaliatory prosecution, requiring that a plaintiff show a lack of probable cause for their prosecution. [5]
The settlement will require the company to hire an independent consultant to evaluate its compensation and promotion policies and retain an outside auditor of its sexual harassment, retaliation ...
Likewise, a hostile work environment can be considered the "adverse employment action" that is an element of a whistleblower claim or a reprisal (retaliation) claim under a civil rights statute. When an employee claims that a hostile work environment is an adverse employment action, the legal analysis is similar to the burdens of proof ...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (which oversees Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan) recently addressed a trucking company's liability when an employee sued alleging ...
An NYPD worker claims she faced retaliation and discrimination after she begged to be reassigned after an alleged domestic violence attack, she claims in a fiery new lawsuit. Fingerprint tech ...
The court held that probable cause will "generally" defeat a claim of retaliatory arrest, except in cases where an officer would typically exercise discretion not to make an arrest, such as in cases of jaywalking. The Court explained: