Retaliatory Discharge

July 2009

An employee who was fired after she complained that her manager was illegally discriminating against job applicants may not sue her employer for retaliatory discharge. Though the employee did engage in a protected activity, the court determined that she was fired by an upper-level supervisor for misuse of the company’s computer system. The court found that the supervisor had no knowledge of the employee’s complaints and that the timing was coincidental. (Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah County, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 05-35896, 2009)

Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version

Comments

The Magazine — Past Issues

Issues:

The Court has upheld most of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, enacted in response to the accounting scandals at Enron and other companies. However, the Court did overturn part of the law that required that members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, established to monitor accounting firms, be fired only for “cause.” The Court said that the board members may be fired at will.

Beyond Print: Legal Issues

Weapons

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to reexamine Chicago’s handgun ban (.pdf). The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the ban, but it did stress that owning firearms is a “fundamental” right.

Security Management is the award-winning publication of ASIS International, the preeminent international
organization for security professionals, with more than 37,000 members worldwide.

ASIS International, Inc. Worldwide Headquarters USA, 1625 Prince Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2818
703-519-6200 | fax 703-519-6299 | www.asisonline.org

© 2010 Security Management
This site is protected by copyright and trade mark laws under U.S. and International law.
No part of this work may be reproduced without the written permission of Security Management.

Retaliatory Discharge

Comments

The Magazine — Past Issues

Related Stories

Supreme Court Update: Sarbanes-Oxley

Weapons