Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 390: Listen and Learn -- Vicarious Liability (Torts)
Life With GDPR: Episode 41-Morrisons at the UK Supreme Court
Life With GDPR: Episode 22- Morrisons’ and vicarious liability
Potential for Vicarious Liability Under the Graves Amendment
In a win for employers, the Connecticut Supreme Court defines “supervisor” narrowly for purposes of vicarious employer liability under Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act - Under Connecticut’s civil rights law, an...more
Can a student harassed by another student bring a lawsuit against the school for allegedly creating a hostile environment under state law? On July 29, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court answered no....more
On Oct. 2, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released proposed enforcement guidance on harassment in the workplace, and the proposed guidance has been receiving quite a bit of attention. This begs the...more
For both good and ill, the COVID-19 pandemic has altered every facet of personal and professional life. For example, many employees have enjoyed unprecedented freedom to work remotely. However, with vaccines becoming more...more
Prevention of occupational hazards and management of matters related to safety and the protection of health at work are major concerns for all those involved in labor law. This newsletter reviews five notable court...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court’s grant of an employer’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the harassing employee was not a...more
On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in favor of Domino's Pizza and all business format franchisors that do business in California. In Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, ---P.3d---, 2014 WL...more
Restaurant franchisor Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (BWW) and Buffalo Wild Wings International Inc. were sued in Arizona's federal district court on charges of Title VII violations....more
In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University ruled that employers are strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor where the supervisor is empowered to take tangible...more
On Monday, we blogged about the first of two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Today, we’ll...more
The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff asserting retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that the retaliation was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse action....more
News agencies flocked to Washington D.C. to witness the end of the United States Supreme Court's October 2012 term expecting something momentous. Handing down historic decisions on such controversial issues as affirmative...more
As the United States Supreme Court wraps up its term, employers should take note of three decisions issued this past Monday, June 24....more
Divided Court holds that a "supervisor" must be empowered to take tangible employment actions for vicarious liability under Title VII to apply and that Title VII retaliation claims are subject to a higher "but-for" causation...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), holding that an employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious employer liability...more
At our recent Labor and Employment Law Seminar, we highlighted a number of outstanding legal cases that have the potential to have a significant impact on employer liability. ...more
On June 24, 2013, a divided U.S. Supreme Court issued much-anticipated decisions in two Title VII cases in which the Court provided some needed certainty and relief to employers on the front lines of employment litigation. In...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided Vance v. Ball State University, ruling that only those employees who have the authority to take “tangible employment actions” qualify as supervisors for purposes of...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion favorable to employers, determining the term "supervisor" under Title VII should be defined narrowly. ...more
The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments in the case Vance v. Ball State University, 646 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2011), which addresses the meaning of a "supervisor" in hostile work environment claims. If the Court applies...more