After reconsidering it’s previous ruling – discussed here – the all-male Iowa Supreme Court issued a new opinion and affirmed that a boss could lawfully fire an attractive employee in order to allay his wife’s fear about potential adultery.

In its initial ruling, the court said that Dr. Knight terminated…

The Iowa Supreme Court will reconsider its ruling regarding whether it was unlawful sex discrimination for a dentist to fire his assistant because she was “irresistible” and because the dentist’s wife viewed the assistant as a threat to their marriage.  We previously reviewed the case and the Iowa Supreme Court’s…

It was a busy day for the Supreme Court, and, in particular, with regard to the employment context.   But, in its second decision of the day relating to Title VII, the Court issued another favorable ruling for employers.

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Court was tasked with deciding the standard a plaintiff must meet to establish a retaliation claim under Title VII (e.g., a claim that the employer retaliated against the employee for engaging in protected activity — opposing an unlawful practice or participating in an investigation or filing an EEOC Charge).

The Supreme Court has just issued its decision in Vance v. Ball State holding that an employee is a “supervisor” for vicarious liability under Title VII only if she has the power given by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.  The Court defines “tangible employment action” to include actions that have a “significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”