This page contains links to edited versions of two cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2015. These cases are Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. It also contains updated regulatory guidance about the FMLA's definition on in loco parentis.
This page also contains edited versions of cases released after the publication date of the first edition of the book. The second edition of the casebook is now available and ready for use for the spring semester of 2014. It incorporates all new cases and other material available as of October of 2013. We are continuing to make the following material available for those using the first edition of the text or for faculty using other textbooks or putting together their own materials.
In January 2011, the Supreme Court decided Thompson v North American Stainless, 131 S.Ct. 863 (2011), holding that a worker who was terminated because his fiancée had filed an EEOC charge could sue for retaliation. An edited version of Thompson is provided at the bottom of the page.
In March 2011, the Supreme Court decided Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S.Ct. 1186 (2011), holding that an employer could be liable under USERRA for an employee's termination under a cat's paw theory of liability. Although not technically a Title VII case, this case contains interesting discussions regarding intent and causation that might be applicable in the discrimination context. An edited version of Staub is provided at the bottom of the page.
In June 2011, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. The Supreme Court denied class certification to a large group of Wal-Mart employees, in a case that is widely regarded as one of the most important employment discrimination cases in recent history.
In January of 2012, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, in which the Court confirmed a ministerial exemption from employment discrimination statutes grounded in the First Amendment.
The Department of Labor issued an Administrator's Interpretation clarifying the applicability of the statute to individuals standing in loco parentis. The Administrator's Interpretation is available at the bottom of the page.
In June of 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, in which the Court held that a plaintiff must establish "but for" cause to prevail on a Title VII retaliation claim.
In June of 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Vance v. Ball State University, in which the Court defined the term "supervisor" for purposes of defining vicarious liability under Title VII.