Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 JANUARY 2011

Supreme Court Decision Alert - January 24, 2011

Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Contributor
Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown is a leading international law firm positioned to represent the world’s major...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mayer Brown

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to retaliate against an employee "because he has made a charge" against his employer under the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and permits "a person claiming to be aggrieved" to file charges against his employer alleging an unlawful employment practice, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Originally published January 24, 2010

Keywords: Supreme Court, Civil Right Act, Title VII, Retaliation, Truth in Lending, Regulation Z

Today the Supreme Court issued two decisions, described below, of interest to the business community.

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—Retaliation Claims
  • Truth in Lending Act—Regulation Z—Notice of Periodic Rate Increases

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—Retaliation Claims

Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291 (previously discussed in the June 29, 2010 docket report).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to retaliate against an employee "because he has made a charge" against his employer under the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and permits "a person claiming to be aggrieved" to file charges against his employer alleging an unlawful employment practice, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). Today, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291, the Supreme Court held that (1) Title

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from