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
Election Day is almost upon us, Gentle Reader. Behave! Dear Miss Mannerly: My employees have strong political views, and since the Presidential debate the other night, they are out of control. They are split about evenly...more
With the election quickly approaching, we are already receiving questions from employers involving concerns over arguments and disruptions in the workplace resulting from political disagreements. We hoped that the contentious...more
In Croke v. VuPoint System Ltd., 2024 ONCA 354, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (OCA) upheld the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario (SCJ)’s summary judgment decision that an employee’s refusal to comply with their employer’s...more
Dear Littler: I manage a growing family medical practice out West. It has come to our attention that one of our staff members maintains an adult-themed website. We learned about this when another staff member complained about...more
Can an employer dismiss an employee for a single wrongful act? And if so, does this wrongful act make the employee liable for damages caused to the employer?...more
Washington state employers are now banned from holding “captive audience” meetings. So-called captive audience meetings are mandatory meetings held by employers during work hours to address activities protected by Section 7...more
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that an employee’s failure to meet COVID-19 vaccination requirements imposed by a third party amounted to frustration of the employment contract. As a result, there was no obligation...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In six months, the U.S. presidential election will take place and inevitably employee views on the elections and election issues will make their way into the workplace. In yesterday’s highly polarized...more
The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case of Miller v. Department of Corrections expands the scope of retaliation claims under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). This decision could have important...more
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously lowered the burden applicable to discriminatory transfer claims brought under Title VII. According to the Court, a showing of some harm—rather than significant or some...more
SCOTUS announces ‘some harm’ standard for Title VII claims based on a mandatory job transfer. The Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., 601 U.S. ____ (April 17, 2024), held that where an...more
The Court's decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis requires plaintiffs to prove "some injury" respecting employment terms or conditions in discrimination cases....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
In the era of Tiktok influencers and Instagram models, almost everyone has an online side hustle, and that highly qualified referral you just interviewed or bright new hire you just made might just be one of them! The same...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
In a recent decision affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc. (the “Agency”), the Connecticut Appellate Court (decision.pdf) provided employers with useful guidance about...more
In Nelson v. Goodberry Restaurant Group Ltd. dba Buono Osteria and others, 2021 BCHRT 137, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found that a restaurant and its managers that refused to use a server’s pronouns, among...more
In a significant decision about workplace drug use, the Connecticut Appellate Court backed an employer’s right to terminate a worker who was impaired on the job by medical marijuana. The decision also clarified the factual...more
On February 21, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) ruled that Home Depot violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the Act) when it effectively terminated an employee after the...more
Two recent court rulings provide a roadmap for Florida employees and their attorneys to take their claims all the way to trial by building a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence. This means that now more than ever,...more
On Nov. 10, 2023, Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law Senate Bill 7, which amends the Health and Safety Code to prohibit a private employer from taking any “adverse action” against an employee, contractor or applicant because of...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that “but-for” is the proper causation standard for FMLA retaliation claims addressed within the...more
On November 13, 2023, in USA ex rel, Morgan-Lee, et al. v. The Whittier Health Network, LLC, et al., a Massachusetts federal district judge concluded that although the plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she raised...more
Tuesday, Ohio voters overwhelmingly passed Issue 2, legalizing recreational marijuana use. Today employers are wondering, “how does this new law affect the workplace?” The short answer is: not much. Consistent with...more
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently held in Papias v. Parker Fasteners LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0775 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2023), that a discharged employee could proceed with his retaliation claim against his former...more