- Posts by Victoria Sloan LinMember of the Firm
Global financial institutions and large multinational corporations looking for a client-driven, highly experienced, and highly responsive employment lawyer to be their client partner turn to Victoria Sloan Lin.
Victoria is ...
On October 3, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s Opinion and Order in Mark C. Savignac and Julia Sheketoff v. Jones Day, et al., 19-cv-02443-RDM, addressed Title VII’s “participation clause,” in granting in part and denying in part, the law firm’s motion for summary judgment.
The court further denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, a married couple who were both formerly employed as attorneys (she resigned in 2018, he was terminated in 2019), alleged federal and state discrimination and retaliation claims based on their objections to Jones Day’s unequal parental leave policies. In the latter part of the opinion, the Court analyzed whether Savignac engaged in protected activity under the participation clause of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).
In addition to prohibiting discrimination, Title VII’s provisions protect a covered individual from employer retaliation when the individual participates in an investigation or opposes covered unlawful conduct. These provisions—commonly referred to as the “participation clause” and “opposition clause”—are intended to encourage employees to report, and employers to address, discrimination in the workplace.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Employers Should Plan for the Impact of Evolving Social Policy on Their Workforce
- Video: Federal Agencies Begin Compliance Efforts Under Trump Administration - Employment Law This Week
- Video: How Will Trump’s Federal Changes Impact Employers? - Employment Law This Week
- DEI Dead at Revamped EEOC: EEOC Enforcement Priorities After Trump Administration Makeover
- Video: How ERISA Litigators Strengthen Plan Compliance and Risk Management - One-on-One with Jeb Gerth