Publications

Section Newsletter Articles on Retaliation

Retaliation under the Illinois Human Rights Act By Hon. William J. Borah Labor and Employment Law, December 2013 A helpful overview for those looking to build a retaliation case under this statute.
Illinois Human Rights Commission decision summaries By Laura D. Mruk Labor and Employment Law, October 2013 Recent cases of interest to employment law practitioners.
The Supreme Court’s Vance v. Ball State University decision—Who is a supervisor for purposes of Title VII? By Carlos S. Arévalo Labor and Employment Law, September 2013 On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Vance v. Ball State University, which held that an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.
U.S. Supreme Court requires “but for” causation standard in Title VII retaliation claims By Jon D. Hoag Labor and Employment Law, September 2013 The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, that employees must establish retaliation is the “but-for” cause and not simply a “motivating factor” of the adverse action, is a victory for employers.
Human resources director allegedly makes admissions of discrimination and retaliation By Michael R. Lied Labor and Employment Law, March 2012 A summary of the recent case of Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC.
Court rejects employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims By Michael R. Lied Labor and Employment Law, October 2011 The court of appeals wrote that no reasonable jury could find that the delivery of a verbal warning, based on a complaint from a coworker, constituted an adverse employment action or created an objectively hostile work environment.
The Supreme Court and retaliation in the “zone of interests”: Thompson v. North American Stainless By Stephen E. Balogh and Adam B.E. Lied Labor and Employment Law, March 2011 Thompson filed a retaliation claim against his employer, American Stainless, alleging that he had been fired in retaliation because his fiance, also employed by American Stainless, had complained about sex discrimination.
“Last chance” agreement fails to bar retaliation claim By Michael R. Lied Labor and Employment Law, May 2009 Last chance agreements are relatively common in unionized work settings.
U.S. Supreme Court expands employees’ ability to pursue retaliation claims By Kathryn Woodward Labor and Employment Law, May 2009 The United States Supreme Court recently decided that an employee who answers questions about alleged harassment during an internal investigation may later pursue a retaliation claim even where the employee did not initiate the complaint.  
Retaliation: How to prove it, How to avoid it. Attorney’s Perspective – Plaintiff By Lori D. Ecker Labor and Employment Law, June 2007 In cases where the plaintiff claims that she was retaliated against for exercising her rights under the ADEA, the usual common law tort damages, such as emotional distress, may be recovered. The same is true for retaliation cases under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The expectation is that the same would hold true for retaliation claims under the FMLA, although there do not appear to be any Seventh Circuit decisions on point.
Supreme Court expands categories of conduct that rise to retaliation claim under Title VII By Peter LaSorsa Corporate Law Departments, August 2006 On June 22, 2006 the United States Supreme Court issued a decision that corporations should pay particular attention to regarding employment law.