Law Commons^™

Protecting Protected Activity, Daiquiri J. Steele

Washington Law Review

The United States Supreme Court recently rolled back protections in employment retaliation cases by requiring plaintiffs to prove that their protected activity was the but-for cause of adverse actions by their employers. As a result, employers may escape liability even though the employee-plaintiffs have proven that employers had an impermissible motive in taking adverse actions. In doing so, the Court undermined the underlying statutes’ retaliation provisions created to help enforce the underlying statute, leading to a court-instituted failure to protect activity that Congress sought to protect.

While legal scholars have paid much attention to the establishment of a but-for causation …

Florida's Late Entrance To The Ongoing Trend: Sexual Orientation In The Workplace, Ernesto Rivero

St. Thomas Law Review

John Doe is an exceptional firefighter who also happens to be a homosexual. John performs his duties every day to the utmost of his ability; however, in response to his sexual orientation, John is verbally harassed daily, underpaid for his line of work, and subsequently discharged from his position. This is a consequence of practicing his protected constitutional right of same sex marriage at his workplace. Every individual ought to have a fair and inclusive workplace free from discrimination; that is not the case in today’s America. Although employees are protected from discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 …