F A C U L T Y   &   S T A F F

USC | LAW

News & Events

High school students learn how to get ahead at Street Law program

Annual Mentor Day highlights higher education /more

USC Law Hosts Conference on Empirical Legal Studies

Law students, faculty encouraged to attend Friday and Saturday conference /more

Law firm model is broken, expert says

Recession speeding up changes that were inevitable, according to Bruce MacEwen o... /more

USC | Gould School of Law

CruzLines

A legal blog offering excursions into the Constitution, equality law, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

Take That

27 May 2008

The Supreme Court of the U.S. today interpreted two federal civil rights laws to protect workers from retaliation for complaining about prohibited discrimination.  In CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, the Court held that a post-Civil War era law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides that "[a]ll persons ... shall have the same right ... to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens," allowed former Cracker Barrel assistant manager to sue not only for his own allegedly racially motivated firing but also for alleged retaliation because he had complained about racially discriminatory treatment of a co-worker.  In Gomez-Perez v. Potter, the Court held that the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act allowed a postal worker to sue for alleged retaliation against her after she filed an administrative ADEA complaint.  In both cases Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, and Chief Justice Roberts dissented as well in Gomez-Perez.

Posted by david at 12:53 PM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: U.S. Supreme Court race discrimination age discrimination


Subscription Options

You are not logged in, so your subscription status for this entry is unknown. You can login or register here.


Comments

No comments found.


Post a Comment



antispam




Facebook
Add to Technorati Favorites