F A C U L T Y   &   S T A F F

USC | LAW

News & Events

More loan help for public interest grads

Changes make loan repayment assistance program more generous and available to mo... /more

Students free life-term prisoner

Calif. Supreme Court says USC Law clinic client may re-join community after near... /more

USC Law Welcomes Class of 2011

109th class is diverse and academically strong /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