|Dec. 12, 2018 | www.fisherphillips.com|
This past summer, in a high-profile case brought against Starbucks, the California Supreme Court resolved an open question concerning compensable time. Or, at least it did to some extent.
A federal appeals court recently upheld a half-million dollar verdict against a small Chicago retailer after it concluded that a male employee was the victim of sex discrimination. Although the employer admitted much of the misconduct occurred, it tried to defend itself by arguing that the behavior was mere “roughhousing” and “horseplay,” and it was not directed at the plaintiff because of his sex. A jury—and the appeals court—disagreed. What can you learn from this stinging verdict?