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.
Can you be punished at work for your political beliefs? Maybe.
It may seem reasonable to assume that your employer can't fire you, demote you, or create some other negative consequence just because of your political beliefs. However, this may not be the case. The federal laws that protect us from discrimination based
Chances are, you’ve signed a policy just like this one without even realizing it. As of 2017, more than half of American workers were bound by arbitration clauses, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
When it comes to the minimum wage, the biggest gap isn't between Republicans and Democrats; it's between politicians who don't want to raise the wage and the people they represent.
Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project on the successful minimum wage ballot measures in Missouri and Arkansas.