Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)

Citation: Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Parent Document: Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2012-05-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2297138/eagen-v-commission-on-human-rig... ↗

Full Text

1,296 chars

519 U.S. 337, 339, 117 S. Ct. 843, 136 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1997), the plaintiff, while his discrimination complaint was pending against his former employer, applied for a job with another company, which contacted the former employer for a reference. The plaintiff, alleging that the former employer gave him a negative reference in retaliation for his having filed the discrimination complaint, then filed suit pursuant to § 704 (a) of Title VII; id., 340; which makes it unlawful “for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment” who have availed themselves of Title VU’s protections. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 339. Reversing the en banc decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the decision of the District Court, the Supreme Court held that the term “employees” in § 704 (a) of Title VII includes former employees as well as current employees. Id., 340-46. The Supreme Court explained that to restrict the statutory antidis-crimination provision to current employees would undermine Title VII’s effectiveness “by allowing the threat of postemployment retaliation to deter victims of discrimination from complaining . . . .” Id., 346. Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein,

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text