We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology Newsfeed
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Learn
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Learn
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact customerservices@lexology.com

Register

Title VII anti-retaliation protection: not just for squeaky wheels, says Supreme Court

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

USA February 2 2009

Wise employers have a written policy and a consistent practice of non-retaliation in connection with any employee who raises complaints about discrimination.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP - <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pillsburylaw.com/christine.kearns">Christine Nicolaides Kearns</a> and&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="http://www.pillsburylaw.com/karen-faye.mctavish">Karen-Faye McTavish </a>
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • USA
  • Employment & Labor
  • Litigation
  • Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Tagged with

  • SCOTUS
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Discrimination
  • Revenge

Popular articles from this firm

  1. The King and IP: A Copyright Tussle between LeBron’s Uninterrupted and the University of Alabama *
  2. The Developer’s Toolbox to Manage Risk of Future Condominium Conversion *
  3. With CDD and Beneficial Ownership Rule in Effect, FinCEN Continues to Clarify and Refine Rules for Financial Institutions *
  4. Data Protection Laws in India *
  5. Employee data privacy - an overview of employer responsibilities *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries@lexology.com.

Send to Create
Powered by Lexology

Related topic hubs

  1. SCOTUS
  2. Discrimination
  3. USA
  4. Employment & Labor
  5. Litigation

Related USA articles

  1. The Obama administration advances agenda on wage inequality through Executive Orders and regulations *
  2. New Jersey pay equity measure says no reprisals against employees requesting information about co-workers *
  3. How to handle whistleblower claims and try to avoid a retaliation lawsuit *

Related international articles

  1. Understand your company’s values to ensure your culture thrives * - Australia

Lexology Navigator Q&A

Compare jurisdictions:Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

  1. Nigeria
  2. Germany
  3. Netherlands
  4. View more
Monique Boutet
Senior Corporate Lawyer
Canon Australia Pty Ltd
What our clients say

"I love the service. It’s a terrific time saver, very practical, very relevant, and very up-to-date. The best new legal resource I’ve come across in a long time. And free to boot! Please keep providing it."

Back to Top
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Globe Business Media Group

© Copyright 2006 - 2019 Globe Business Media Group