On Monday, the Supreme Court issued two decisions that many legal experts believe will make it more difficult for employees to sue employers for discrimination and retaliation. These controversial rulings were both determined by 5-4 votes.
In the first decision, the court ruled that in order for the alleged violator to be considered a “supervisor”, the individual must be empowered to both hire and fire employees. This distinction will make it considerably harder for an employee to pursue legal action against a business due to a co-worker’s racism or sexism, even if that co-worker has been granted limited authority over the employee. The case before the court was brought by a former catering specialist at Ball State University who alleged that a co-worker subjected her to racial harassment and retaliation. The catering specialist claimed the co-worker was a supervisor, but the lower courts dismissed her suit based on the fact that the co-worker could not fire her and therefore was not formally her supervisor.
In the second decision, the court determined that in cases involving alleged retaliation by employers against employees that allege discrimination and harassment, courts must inform juries deciding these cases that they must find the discriminatory action would not have occurred “but-for” the employer’s desire to retaliate. The judge in the original case informed the jury that finding retaliation was a motivating factor was sufficient, which is considered “mixed-motive”. The case involved a medical doctor who alleged that a hospital rescinded a job offer after one of his former supervisors at a medical center – his previous employer – opposed it. The doctor sued the medical center, claiming that the former supervisor’s action constituted retaliation for earlier claims the doctor made of alleged harassment.
Visit Human Resources Plus to learn more.