In an action by the EEOC claiming that defendant terminated an employee in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that plaintiff complained of discrimination based on his religion; and 2) the jury could reasonably conclude that the employee had the option of returning to his original sales position at defendant company.
Read EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., No. 07-16190
Judges
Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher
Dissent by Judge Noonan
Counsel
For Appellant:
Fred W. Alvarez, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Palo Alto, CA
Michael J. Nader, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Palo Alto, CA
For Appellee:
James M. Tucker, EEOC, Washington, DC
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
