Add to ORKGThis case note provides the factual background of Vance v. Ball State and briefly summarizes the legal precedent behind the decision. It analyzes the opinion of the Court, suggesting that the decision severely limited the essential protections against workplace harassment provided by Title VII, consequently making it more difficult for employees to prove employer vicarious liability for workplace harassment
In its recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Co. v. White, the Supreme Court resolved th...
In Consider the Source, Susan Grover and Kim Piro argue for a change in the analysis that courts app...
The United States Supreme Court held that Title VII\u27s anti-retaliation provision is not limited t...
What makes someone a supervisor? Employees have practical reasons for knowing the answer to this que...
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer can be held liable for harassment or di...
In two decisions concerning sexual harassment, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton\u27 and Burlington Ind...
In two decisions concerning sexual harassment, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton\u27 and Burlington Ind...
It is easier to hold a company liable for workplace harassment perpetrated by a supervisor than by a...
In a ruling issued yesterday, Vance v. Ball State University, a divided Supreme Court held that a ha...
Most lawyers, law professors, and judges are familiar with two standard critiques of formalism in le...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer ...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19642 ( Title VII ) prohibits employment discrimination Althoug...
On June 22, 2006, the United States Supreme Court broadened the purview of the anti-retaliation prov...
Case at a Glance: Petitioner Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a sergeant for the St. Louis Police Departmen...
In one of its most controversial decisions in years, the Supreme Court in May issued a 5-4 ruling in...
In its recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Co. v. White, the Supreme Court resolved th...
In Consider the Source, Susan Grover and Kim Piro argue for a change in the analysis that courts app...
The United States Supreme Court held that Title VII\u27s anti-retaliation provision is not limited t...
What makes someone a supervisor? Employees have practical reasons for knowing the answer to this que...
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer can be held liable for harassment or di...
In two decisions concerning sexual harassment, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton\u27 and Burlington Ind...
In two decisions concerning sexual harassment, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton\u27 and Burlington Ind...
It is easier to hold a company liable for workplace harassment perpetrated by a supervisor than by a...
In a ruling issued yesterday, Vance v. Ball State University, a divided Supreme Court held that a ha...
Most lawyers, law professors, and judges are familiar with two standard critiques of formalism in le...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer ...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19642 ( Title VII ) prohibits employment discrimination Althoug...
On June 22, 2006, the United States Supreme Court broadened the purview of the anti-retaliation prov...
Case at a Glance: Petitioner Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a sergeant for the St. Louis Police Departmen...
In one of its most controversial decisions in years, the Supreme Court in May issued a 5-4 ruling in...
In its recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Co. v. White, the Supreme Court resolved th...
In Consider the Source, Susan Grover and Kim Piro argue for a change in the analysis that courts app...
The United States Supreme Court held that Title VII\u27s anti-retaliation provision is not limited t...