The Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on February 8, 2024, when it issued its opinion holding that a whistleblower need not prove that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent” in order to obtain the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month.
Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases asking whether to overturn Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last two months.
SCOTUS heard arguments in a potentially pivotal case concerning whether Title VII requires plaintiffs to establish a “materially adverse” employment action, “objective tangible harm,” or an “ultimate employment decision” to state a viable claim.
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month.
In a recent decision the Second Circuit clarified that the federal Equal Pay Act does not require employers to show that a “factor other than sex” defense must be job-related.
Applying a strict interpretation of the statutory language, the Fifth Circuit made clear that a Title VII plaintiff can survive a motion to dismiss by pleading adverse actions with respect to “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”
