- •Статьи для перевода на русский язык
- •Dating and Family Relationships in the Workplace: Should You Have a Policy? (8/11)
- •Summer Increase to irs Standard Mileage Rate (8/11)
- •Fragrance Sinsitivities at Work: Irritant or ada Issue? (8/11)
- •Are Written Policies Contracts? (8/11)
- •Notice Requirements for Policy Changes (8/11)
- •Are Your Exempt Classifications a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen? (7/11)
- •Gross Misconduct and cobra (7/11)
- •Supreme Court Rejects Giant Wal-Mart Class Action Discrimination Suit (7/11)
- •Employers Beware: The nlrb Is Targeting Nonunion Employers (6/11)
- •1099 Reporting Provision Repealed at Last (6/11)
- •New dol Phone App Underscores Importance of Accurate flsa Records (6/11)
- •Employee Medical Files (6/11)
- •It’s Official - Everyone (Almost) is Disabled Now Under New ada Regs (5/11)
- •Moonlighting: How to Deal with Employees’ Second Jobs (4/11)
- •Five Tips to Address Negative Facebook and other Social Media Postings (4/11)
- •Is “Being Unemployed” the Next Protected Class? (4/11)
- •Congress Closer to Passing 1099 Reporting Provision Repeal (4/11)
- •Medical Marijuana in the Workplace (4/11)
- •Guns in the Workplace (4/11)
- •Five Ways the dol Makes It Easier for Employees to Sue You (3/11)
- •Unanimous Supreme Court Broadens Title VII Retaliation Protections (3/11)
- •Can You Make Flexible Work Arrangements "Work" for You? (3/11)
- •Six Keys to Effective Performance Evaluations (2/11)
- •New Regulations on the Executive Agenda: How Will They Affect Your Workplace? (2/11)
- •New Year's Check Up: Do You Have the Right Workplace Posters (1/11)
- •Congress Extends Expiring Tax Cuts; Cuts Payroll Taxes for Employees (1/11)
- •Requiring Medical Certification for All Sick Days (1/11)
- •Irs Delays New w-2 Reporting Requirement (12/10)
- •Gina Final Regulations Finally Issued (12/10)
- •Paying Nonexempt Employees a Fixed Salary (12/10)
- •Reassignment Obligations and the ada (11/10)
- •Per Diem Rates Decline for Business Travel Expenses (11/10)
- •Be Careful Using Unpaid Suspensions to Discipline Exempt Employees (11/10)
- •Health Care Dependent Coverage Regulations Issued (10/10)
- •Health Care 1099 Reporting Rule Will Create New Tax Burden (10/10)
- •Modest Pay Increases Expected for 2011 as Economy Tries to Recover (10/10)
- •Required Leave for Part-Time Pregnant Employee (10/10)
- •Overtime When Paid Time Off Taken During Week (10/10)
- •You're Not Paranoid if Someone Really Is Watching You: Monitoring Employee Use of Social Media (9/10)
- •Tuition Tax Break Set to Expire (9/10)
- •Dol Clarifies Who Can Be Considered Like a Parent Under fmla (9/10)
- •Employee Benefits Remain Stable as Recession Lingers (9/10)
- •Independent Contractor Classification Causes Confusion, Potential Penalties (8/10)
- •New Child Labor Regs Expand "Safe" Jobs for Teens (8/10)
- •Pay for Employee Who Clocks In Early (8/10)
- •Your Harassment Response is Key to Prevent Liability (7/10)
- •Cobra Subsidy Expires - Will it Be Renewed? (7/10)
- •Supreme Court Allows Search of Public Employee's Text Messages (7/10)
- •Wage Overpayments (7/10)
- •Disclosing Status of Employee with Medical Problem (7/10)
- •Twelve Steps to Effective Workplace Searches (6/10)
- •New Laws Give Employers Hiring Incentive (6/10)
- •Ftc Requires Employees to Disclose Relationship on Blogs, Social Media (6/10)
- •How to Deal with an Employee with a Drinking Problem (6/10)
- •Voluntary Unpaid Vacation (6/10)
- •Can Anything Be Done to Stop the Avalanche of Wage and Hour Litigation? a Few Class Action Avoidance Options (5/10)
- •New Health Care Act Requires Breaks for Nursing Mothers (5/10)
- •Flsa Investigations: What to Expect When the dol Pays a Visit (5/10)
- •Job Demotion Because of Absenteeism (5/10)
- •Consider Religious Accommodations to Improve Employee Relations (4/10)
- •Cobra Subsidy Extended Only Through March; More to Come? (4/10)
- •Know Your Obligations Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (fcra) (4/10)
- •Is it Time to Revisit Your Distracted Driving Policy (3/10)
- •Make Better Promotion Decisions (3/10)
- •Irs and Obama Administration Target Independent Contractors (3/10)
- •Summer Increase to irs Standard Mileage Rate (8/11)
Unanimous Supreme Court Broadens Title VII Retaliation Protections (3/11)
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has determined that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) permits third-party retaliation claims. In this case, Thompson v. North American Stainless, 131 S. Ct. 863 (January 24, 2011), an employee filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against her employer alleging sex discrimination. Three weeks later, her fiance was terminated from employment with the same company. The fiance filed suit against the employer alleging his termination was in retaliation for his fiancee’s EEOC complaint. Title VII prohibits employers from, among other things, retaliating against employees for opposing any practice prohibited by Title VII. The lower courts had determined that the employee’s situation did not fall under the Title VII protections. They ruled that third-party retaliation claims were not permitted under Title VII. According to those courts, Title VII protects from retaliation those employees who have filed claims alleging discrimination and also permits suits by a person who claims to have been “aggrieved” by an unlawful employment practice. Therefore, the male fiance could not file a retaliation claims since he had not engaged in any activity protected by Title VII. The Supreme Court disagreed and determined that Title VII must be interpreted broadly to cover a broad range of employer conduct and prohibits any employer action that might have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a [discrimination] charge.” According to the Court, “a reasonable worker obviously might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiance would be fired.” The Court went on to determine that the male fiance fell within the “zones of interests” protected by Title VII and was not an “accidental victim” of retaliation, but rather “injuring him was the employer’s intended means of harming” the female employee. Unfortunately, however, the Court did not provide concrete guidance to employers on which third parties could file retaliation claims. It specifically declined “to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful,” and so leaves that issue for other courts to interpret. According to the Court, “We expect that firing a close family member will almost always” meet the retaliation standard, and “inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize.” Retaliation claims are an increasing problem for employers. Recent enforcement statistics from the EEOC show that retaliation claims for fiscal year (FY) 2010 account for over 36% of claims filed, and accounted for the highest number of discrimination claims filed. So what can you do to prevent retaliation claims in your workplace? Your most potent weapon is to implement and enforce clear “no retaliation” policies so that managers and coworkers understand the seriousness of the issue. For example, harassment, equal employment opportunity, and complaint policies should state plainly that you prohibit retaliation against employees who make complaints or provide information about discrimination or other protected activity. In addition, you should train managers to recognize and avoid actions that could be interpreted as retaliatory.