While I was attending the ABA Board of Governors meeting last week, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that received outsized coverage given it’s relative minor impact to employers in the Constitution State.
So what did the Court hold? In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court struck
With apologies to P!nk (and her hit, “Just Give Me a Reason”), a new court decision gives new meaning to the phrase.
Before we get to that, longtime readers of the blog will no doubt be familiar with the burden-shifting analysis that courts use to analyze discrimination
Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court clarified in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, that the burden of proof in age discrimination cases. So where does that leave the so-called "mixed-motive" analysis that has frankly confused many employers (and their attorneys) over the years?
My colleague, Robert Mitchell, does a good job explaining the
Appellate Court decisions can be frustrating. Every once in a while, instead of deciding the merits of the matter, the court will reject an appeal because a part
y did not "preserve" the issue at the lower courts through a proper protest.
That’s what happened in Mokonnen v. Pro Park, Inc. (download here) from the