F A C U L T Y   &   S T A F F

USC | LAW

News & Events

Law firm model is broken, expert says

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

Woman freed by student speaks to law school

Connie Keel was released on parole in April after serving 29 years in prison /more

Current and Future Challenges in Copyright Law

Entertainment insiders, USC Law profs examine the collision of technology and ar... /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