Case Name: Staub v. Proctor Hospital Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 09-400 Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: Employer may be liable for monetary damages for discrimination if the employer terminates the employee through the actions of a non-biased senior supervisor based on erroneous reports of misbehavior by immediate supervisors who have a specific intent to have the employee terminated due to their discriminatory animus against the employee. |
Case Name: Thompson v. North American Stainless Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 09-291 Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: Employer may not retaliate against a worker who is a fiancée or close family member of a co-worker who has filed a charge of discrimination with a government agency. |
Case Name: Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 12-484 Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Issue: Does the prohibition on shifting the burden of persuasion to employers in "mixed-motives" employment age discrimination cases apply to retaliation claims under Title VII? |
Case Name: Vance v. Ball State University Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 11-556 Read Summary AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Issue: Does employer's vicarious liability for severe or pervasive workplace harassment under Title VII by a supervisor extend to a person who had authority to direct and oversee the victim's daily work? |
Case Name: Victor v. New Jersey Court: NJ Supreme Ct. Docket: 63-285 Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: Court, although affirming a decision dismissing underlying claims-vacated lower court's ruling that held contrary to federal court decisions in similar cases under the Americans with Disabilities Act, that under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, it is necessary for a worker claiming disability-based employment discrimination in the form of his employer's refusal to afford him "reasonable accommodation" to prove a separate "adverse employment action" by the employer, above and beyond the failure to accommodate plaintiff's disabilities itself. |
Case Name: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 10-277 Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: Court held that the class in this massive gender discrimination case had been improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2), both because common questions were lacking under Rule 23(a)(2) and because the class had sought individualized monetary relief in addition to injunctive and declaratory relief. |
Case Name: Wells Fargo Wage and Hour Emp't Practices Litig. (In re) Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Docket: 12-20605 Read Summary AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: Court denied writ of mandamus that asked the court to abandon the longstanding test for determining whether employees can pursue their claims collectively and replace it with a much stricter standard. |
Case Name: Whitaker v. 3M Co. Court: Dist. Ct. of Ramsey County, Minn. Read Summary Case Result: Claims filed on behalf of approximately 6,000 current and former Minnesota employees of 3M, based on state law, setled for $9 million with no admission of liability. |
Case Name: Young v. Bellofram Corp. Court: W. Va. Supreme Ct. Docket: 35439 Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: Court denied petition for rehearing of decision that in order for an age discrimination plaintiff to prevail, the individual they claim was treated more favorably must be outside the protected class, i.e., under 40. |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
