The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that a Plaintiff in a retaliation case must show that the adverse employment action would not have ocurred if they had not participated in the protected activity, this is known as the “but for” test. In a recent case the Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, Carvalho-Grevious v. Delaware State University, No. 15-3521 (March 21, 2017), held that in the summary judgment stage of a retaliation case, the “but for” standard does not apply, but rather a Plaintiff will only have to show that the protected activity was the “likely reason” for the adverse action. This could impact the number of cases filed, and the number that make it past summary judgment in the Third Circuit.
Workplace Fairness will continue to montior this issue and keep our content up to date as changes happen. Share us on facebook and help other workers get the information they need about their rights.
President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ran a family company in which employees were subjected to “widespread” and “pervasive” sexual harassment, according to an investigation by the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
The sworn statements, when read from beginning to end, are shocking, first for the consistency of horrors across cities and regions. Then for the egregiousness and audacity of the abuse they detail.
Taffy Brodesser-Akner on widespread harassment and wage discrimination at Sterling Jewelers, the largest jewelry retailer in the United States, for the New York Times Magazine.