Retaliation – The Basics

2018-02-28T20:53:56+00:00 September 1st, 2016|Categories: Alexis P. Theriault, Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources Compliance, Litigation, MCAD & EEOC, Thomas J. Gallitano|Tags: |

Retaliation “occurs when an employer takes a materially adverse action because an individual has engaged in, or may engage in, activity in furtherance of the EEO laws the Commission enforces.” See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. These laws include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII), the

Recent SJC Decision Clarifies Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Burden On Summary Judgment In Employment Discrimination Cases

2017-01-13T17:39:45+00:00 March 29th, 2016|Categories: Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources Compliance, Michael J. Rossi|

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently clarified the plaintiff’s evidentiary burden at the summary judgment stage of an employment discrimination case, in a decision which likely will make it easier for employees to get discrimination cases to a jury. In Bulwer v. Mt. Auburn Hospital, 46 N.E.3d 24 (Mass. 2016), the SJC held

Supreme Court Considers Timing For Constructive Discharge Claims

2018-02-28T20:57:03+00:00 December 16th, 2015|Categories: Alexis P. Theriault, Discrimination & Harassment, Litigation, MCAD & EEOC|Tags: |

In Green v. Brennan, the Supreme Court will decide an important procedural question involving the issue of “constructive discharge”—what is the trigger that starts the clock for filing a claim? Is it the employer’s last discriminatory act or the date of the employee’s resignation? The Justices heard argument on November 30th, and a decision is

What Can Brown Do For You? Accommodate Your Pregnancy!

2018-02-28T20:58:58+00:00 December 9th, 2015|Categories: Christopher Sweeney, Discrimination & Harassment, FMLA, Human Resources Compliance|Tags: |

United Parcel Service, with its familiar fleet of brown trucks, once asked rhetorically “What Can Brown Do for You?”. Thanks to a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, UPS now has its answer. The Court’s decision held that UPS and other employers must provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees where denying such

What the Protected Class, Gender Identity, Means to Employers

2017-01-13T17:18:55+00:00 July 28th, 2015|Categories: Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources Compliance, Labor Law & NLRB, Mary E. (Beth) O'Neal, MCAD & EEOC|

Recap of Where Gender Identity is a Protected Class Nineteen states (Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington) and the District of Columbia expressly prohibit discrimination based upon gender identity, in both private and public employment. Six states (Indiana,

Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide May Have Implications for Employers

2018-02-28T20:59:40+00:00 June 29th, 2015|Categories: Christopher Sweeney, Discrimination & Harassment, Human Resources Compliance, Labor Law & NLRB, Laws & Regulations|Tags: |

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al., that the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution guarantee the right of same-sex couples to marry. The 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy directs that all states must issue marriage licenses to

The Lowdown on the US Supreme Court Abercrombie Decision

2018-02-28T20:58:35+00:00 June 2nd, 2015|Categories: Discrimination & Harassment, MCAD & EEOC, Thomas J. Gallitano|Tags: |

Photo Credit: Mordy Steinfeld CC In a decisive 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided yesterday with the EEOC in the religious discrimination case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86, Supreme Court of the United States (June 1, 2015). In a Nutshell Justice Antonin Scalia, writing

Load More Posts