Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 JANUARY 2009

Supreme Court Docket Report - Decision Alert - January 26, 2009

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 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because the employee "has opposed" unlawful workplace race or gender discrimination—commonly known as the "opposition clause"—or because the employee "has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII]"—commonly known as the "participation clause."

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Originally published January 26, 2009

Keywords: Civil Rights Act, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, Crawford v. Metro., sexual harassment, ERISA, Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont, retirement benefits, United States v. Eurodif, unfair foreign competition, fair value

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

Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., No. 06-1595 (previously discussed in the January 21, 2008 Docket Report).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because the employee "has opposed" unlawful workplace race or gender discrimination—commonly known as the "opposition clause"—or because the employee "has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII]"—commonly known as the "participation clause." 42 U.S.C.

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