The United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has held. that former employees may sue under Title VII o.

Having well?written employment policies is a good thing, but it is only half the battle. If they are not enforced, they are like tools rusting away, unused in the garage. Worse, if they are enforced unevenly among employees, they can become tools of destruction. This was demonstrated rather starkly in Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner v. Kohler Co., in which the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment in favor of the employer because the employer failed to enforce its discliplinary policies uniformly.

South Carolina courts have long recognized the doctrine of at-will employment, which allows either the employer or.

New decisions seem to keep popping up everywhere, adding to the complexity of managing employees. Two recent ones deserve some special attention: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, decided on June 22, 2006, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and U-Haul Co of California, decided on June 8, 2006, by the National Labor Relations Board. The former makes it easier for disgruntled employees to claim retaliation under Title VII; the latter may call into question the enforceability of many individual employee-employer arbitration agreements.

The First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal has ruled that an individual supervisor may be held liable for retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").

Georgia law allows an employer to fire an employee for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all—unless the .

If an employee complains about his employer's conduct, and the conduct isn't actually unlawful, may the employee still have a viable claim for discrimination? Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the answer is "yes." Under that Act, an employee is entitled to complain (internally to the company or externally to a governmental agency) about what she perceives to be unlawful discrimination by the employer against any company employee. Such complaining or "opposition" is considered protected activity.

Last month we ran Part I of this article which explored various state and federal anti-retaliation laws and how they protect employees who allege or are about to allege workplace discrimination or other violations.

For employers, retaliation claims may very well be the scariest area of employment discrimination law because the merit of the employee's initial discrimination complaint may not prevent an employee from reaching a jury and ultimately prevailing on a retaliation claim. To establish retaliation, an employee need only show, generally, that he or she engaged in a "protected activity" (e.g., complaining of discrimination to management or filing a charge with the EEOC) and thereafter suffered an adverse employment action (e.g., termination, demotion, denial of a promotion), because of the protected activity. Perhaps for that reason, the number of retaliation-based charges filed with the EEOC has nearly tripled over the last 15 years.

Nebraska has long adhered to the "employment-at-will" doctrine and has recognized, in many cases, a contract exception to that doctrine. While the Nebraska Supreme Court has declined to adopt a "good faith and fair dealing" exception to the doctrine, the Court has recognized, in a few cases, a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

New decisions seem to keep popping up everywhere, adding to the complexity of managing employees. Two recent ones deserve some special attention: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, decided on June 22, 2006, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and U-Haul Co of California, decided on June 8, 2006, by the National Labor Relations Board. The former makes it easier for disgruntled employees to claim retaliation under Title VII; the latter may call into question the enforceability of many individual employee-employer arbitration agreements.

Three recent appellate court cases test the reach of workers' com-pensation trade-off protections for workers and immunity for employers.

In retaliation cases, it matters not whether the initial workers' compensation claim filed was bogus or frivolous; a retaliation claim can be brought even on denied, rejected or even frivolous workers' compensation claims as long as the discipline, discharge or termination decision was related to filing of the workers' compensation claim. The timing of the discharge was within three weeks of his client's filing of her workers' compensation claim, and the decision may have been earlier. Never mind that his client was absent from work more than 80 times in 18 months.

In our February 2003 flash report, we discussed legislative bills introduced in the 2003 legislative session that would have significant impact on employers. Since distribution of that flash report, a new bill has been introduced and is making a swift journey through the Oregon Senate. In this flash report we cover that bill, and review current Washington law on the subject.