Title VII is a landmark piece of legislation that prohibits discrimination, including harassment, in employment based on race, sex, religion, color, and national origin by an employer. It also prohibits retaliation against an employee “because” the individual complained of, opposed, or participated in a proceeding about prohibited discrimination.
There are many lawsuits based on Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. The question in these retaliation lawsuits has always been what should be the nature of evidence necessary to show retaliation by the employer. In this essay, Gurumurthy Kalyanaram presents the decisions and results on this matter.
Title VII is a landmark piece of legislation that prohibits discrimination, including harassment, in employment based on race, sex, religion, color, and national origin by an employer. It also prohibits retaliation against an employee “because” the individual complained of, opposed, or participated in a proceeding about prohibited discrimination.
0 Comments
There are many lawsuits arising out of disputes in interpretation of the collectively bargained agreements. Unions and employers work hard to craft CBAs, but lawsuits emerge even in cases of carefully designed CBAs. In this essay, Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on this important matter.
U.S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit have established precedents which mandate that (i) the provisions of a Collective Bargaining Agreement must be read as a whole in conjunction with other provisions; and (ii) the provisions of a Collective Bargaining Agreement must be interpreted in a manner that does not render any provision superfluous, meaningless, or of no effect. |