On March 18, 2019, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a bill amending the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to prohibit contractual provisions that result in the wavier of a right or remedy provided under the LAD or prevent the disclosure of information pertaining to claims of discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The amendment, which
On April 20, 2017, in Marshall v. The Rawlings Company LLC, No. 16-5614, slip op., (6th Cir. April 20, 2017) the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers federal courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, for the first time adopted the cat’s paw theory of liability in the context of a retaliation
Featured on Employment Law This Week: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a final rule for handling retaliation under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The ACA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for receiving Marketplace financial assistance when purchasing health insurance through an Exchange. The ACA also protects employees from retaliation for
Featured on Employment Law This Week: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued new guidance on workplace retaliation.
The EEOC’s final guidance on retaliation includes concrete examples of retaliation issues that the courts have largely agreed upon, as well as expanded definitions of “adverse action” and “causal connection.” The guidance also describes “promising practices”
On August 29, 2016, the EEOC issued its final Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues (Guidance) to replace its 1998 Compliance Manual section on retaliation, including tips on ADA interference. The Guidance reflects the Commission’s consideration of feedback received on the proposal from about 60 organizations and individuals following a 30-day public input period
In employment litigation, plaintiffs often rely on the “cat’s paw” doctrine to hold their employers liable for discriminatory or retaliatory animus of a 
supervisory employee who influenced, but did not make, the ultimate employment decision. On August 29, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service,
Last month, in United States ex rel. Helfer v. Associated Anesthesiologists of Springfield, Ltd., No. 3:10-cv-03076 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2016), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois held that the retaliation provision of the False Claims Act (“FCA”)
By: Amy B. Messigian
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, one of two employment-related opinions issued on Monday by the Supreme Court, a narrow majority held that a retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved according to a strict but for causation
The plaintiff, a former employee of On Lok, inc., a non-profit organization which serves the Bay Area elderly population, filed a lawsuit after her employment was terminated when she was seven (7) months pregnant and shortly before her anticipated maternity leave was expected to begin. She claimed pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in response to her