DE Under 3: Title VII Actionable Adverse Employment Actions Not Limited to Only “Ultimate” Employment Decisions
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
#WorkforceWednesday: CA COVID-19 Policies Get Updates, NYC Pay Transparency Law Postponed, DOL Targets Worker Retaliation - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
Managing the Size and Structure of Your Post-Pandemic Workforce
Political and Controversial Activity in the Workplace [More with McGlinchey Ep. 11]
Workplace Violence Rises During COVID-19 - Employment Law This Week®
Social Media + Employees = Hot Mess
Warning Signs that Signal You Might be Terminated from Your Job
The Basics of Michigan’s Social Media Password Law & Why It Isn’t Such a Great Idea
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court held that an employee need only show “some harm” to maintain a Title VII discrimination claim against an employer for a lateral job transfer. Background - After nine...more
If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a lateral job transfer can – in certain circumstances – be an illegal adverse action and support a claim for a lawsuit for unlawful discrimination. This...more
On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer may violate Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer did...more
On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court provided an opening for workers to allege employment discrimination claims regarding job transfers based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. In Muldrow v....more
Courts continue to explore whether the threshold for actionable “adverse employment actions” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been construed too narrowly. Upending several decades of precedent, in 2023, the...more
On November 17, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Bill S4516 into law, which amends the requirements for non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions in certain settlement agreements. Previously, New York law...more
Addressing what it deemed an “interpretive incongruity,” on August 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit shifted nearly 30 years of Title VII disparate treatment precedent in Hamilton et al. v. Dallas County. Prior to Hamilton, Fifth...more
If you are an employer covered by the federal Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi), you are probably familiar with the “ultimate employment decision” standard: In determining whether an employee suffered an...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Confronted with pleadings that unequivocally showcases the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department’s discriminatory scheduling policies, the Fifth Circuit finds that the strict application of its precedent...more
For employers, figuring out what constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII may seem elusive. In general, an adverse employment action is an ultimate employment decision that affects job duties, compensation or...more
On August 9, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) had adequate justification to rule that an aluminum manufacturer (“Constellium”) violated the...more
In a world radically changed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the way we communicate in the workplace has been permanently altered with the integration of online communication platforms. Effective communication is essential to...more
The UK’s Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found on 10 June 2021 in Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and others that gender-critical beliefs—including believing that one’s biological sex is immutable and not to be conflated with...more
On March 31, 2021, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Cannabis/Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (the “Act”), which legalizes recreational cannabis use for adults aged 21 and over. The Act provides the framework for the...more
Per recent federal employment law guidance, private employers can generally require employees to get vaccinated for COVID-19 as long as they comply with federal employment laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of...more
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the making of contracts, including employment contracts. Section 1981 is often used by employees suing for race discrimination as...more
Electronics Manufacturer Demoted and Discharged Employee Due to Her Mental Illness, Federal Agency Charges - TAMPA - Interconnect Cable Technology Corporation (ICTC), an electronics manufacturer in Brooksville, Fla.,...more
For better or worse, when your parents disapprove of the person you’ve chosen to marry, there’s not much recourse in the law (although some might call your parents’ attitude a form of intentional infliction of emotional...more
Employers may desire to transfer an employee to a different position, division, or office because of personality conflicts, performance issues, a reorganization, or myriad other reasons. ...more
In May each year, broadcast TV, cable, and streaming services begin announcing series renewals and cancellations. This process continues well into the summer....more
In order to prove disparate treatment discrimination under federal employment laws, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the decision-maker in an adverse action was at least partially motivated by discriminatory intent. Federal...more
On February 1, 2018, Maine will become the first jurisdiction in the nation to protect workers from adverse employment action based on their use of marijuana and marijuana products, provided the use occurs away from the...more