In the New Year, two states – New Jersey and Illinois – have proposed legislation requiring restaurants to adopt a sexual harassment training policy and provide anti-sexual harassment training to employees. While it remains to be seen whether these bills will become law, attempts to target and reform working conditions in the hospitality industry are nonetheless noteworthy, particularly given that unlike New York and California, neither New Jersey nor Illinois have enacted broad legislation requiring private sector employers, regardless of occupation, to provide sexual ...
In a 5-4 decision the dissent termed “decidedly employer-friendly,” the Supreme Court held on June 24, 2013 that only employees who have been empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against a harassment victim constitute “supervisors” for the purpose of vicarious liability under Title VII. Per the holding in Vance v. Ball State University, employees who merely direct the work activities of others, but who lack the authority to take tangible employment actions, will no longer be considered supervisors under Title VII.
Under ...
Our colleague Julie Saker Schlegel at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Holds That Only Employees Who Have Authority to Take Tangible Employment Actions Constitute Supervisors for the Purpose of Vicarious Liability Under Title VII” on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog, and we think financial services employers will be interested. Following is an excerpt:
In a 5-4 decision the dissent termed “decidedly employer-friendly,” the Supreme Court held on June 24, 2013 that only employees who have been empowered by the employer to take tangible ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Pumping the Brakes: New York Seeks to Curb AI Acceleration in Labor Market
- Video: California Governor’s PAGA Deal: What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week
- Act Now: New York Employers Must Provide Paid Lactation Breaks to Employees
- Supreme Court Overturns Chevron—but for Stakeholders, the Impact Is No Cause for Alarm
- Fifth Circuit Narrows Application of the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege in Investigations