The ARB recently affirmed a motion for summary decision against a Complainant claiming retaliatory discharge under SOX, finding that he failed to demonstrate that he engaged in protected activity and that the Company would have discharged him in the absence of any protected activity given his misconduct. Latigo v. ENI
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently ruled that a retaliation claim survived summary judgment because of the “convincing mosaic” of evidence of retaliation the Plaintiff presented, particularly the employer’s purportedly shifting explanation regarding its reason for terminating her employment. Wessman v. DDB Chicago Inc., No. 12-cv-6712 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 29, 2013).
In a Law360 article (subscription required), Steven J. Pearlman, co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblower & Retaliation Group, recently commented on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, No. 12-484 (June 24, 2013), adopting a “but-for” causation standard for Title VII…
On April 3, 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that a plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-5(g)) where a jury returned a verdict in his favor on his retaliation claim because (it found) the employer would have taken the same challenged action in the absence of protected activity even though it had an impermissible motive. Carter v. Luminant Power Servs. Co., No. 12-cv-10642, 2013 WL 1337365 (5th Cir. April 3, 2013).