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
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
You are about to enter another dimension. A journey into the world of discrimination and retaliation. Consider, if you will, the case of an employee who suspects that he or she is about to be fired or demoted for misconduct...more
In Nessel v. JDM Golf LLC, 2024 WL 3494378, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment for an employer, dismissing the federal law and Arizona state law claims of a former employee alleging...more
USERRA prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of their past or current military service. Specifically, USERRA prohibits an employer from denying service members initial employment, reemployment,...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that proving an employer’s retaliatory intent is not required for whistleblowers seeking protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 445 (2024),...more
For a retaliation claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), must an employee show that an adverse employment action would not have happened but-for (i.e., it happened only because of) the employee’s request for...more
A recent legislative amendment in Belgium introduces protection against dismissal and a prohibition of discrimination when an employee is absent due to an infertility treatment or a programme of medically assisted...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
Settles Federal Charges the Casual Dining Chain Allowed Female Employees, including a Teen, to be Sexually Harassed, Retaliated Against, and Forced to Resign - EVERETT, Wash. – Restaurant chain Red Robin International,...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently weighed in on the circuit-splitting debate over the proper causation standard for Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) retaliation claims. In a win for employers,...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, holding that whistleblowers asserting retaliation claims under Sarbanes-Oxley must prove protected activity was a contributing factor...more
Welcome to this edition of the FP Snapshot on workplace safety, where we take a quick snapshot look at a recent significant workplace law development that affects your safety and health programs. This edition is devoted to...more
Employers with employees located in the states falling within the jurisdiction of Fifth Circuit federal courts (e.g. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) should take note of an important federal appellate ruling impacting Title...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
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U. S. ____, 2024 WL 478566 (2024), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. ___(2024), a case involving a former UBS employee’s claim that he was terminated for making an internal report...more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that employers can violate whistleblower protection statutes without evidence establishing retaliatory...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the case, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al. (February 8, 2024). The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms an...more
The Background: In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC., et al. ("Murray") that an employee suing his employer under the anti-retaliation provisions of...more
Last week in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an employee who sued his former employer for retaliatory termination did not need to prove a retaliatory intent behind the decision. Murray v. UBS...more
The US Supreme Court ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC that whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) need not prove retaliatory intent. This ruling is consistent with current precedent for Energy Reorganization...more
Outlined in part one of our series—SCOTUS Clarifies Whistleblower Claims Standard under Sarbanes Oxley—the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal court of appeals decision, resolving a recent federal appeals court split...more
On Feb. 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that plaintiffs bringing whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 do not need to prove...more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standard for proving causation under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the “Act”), easing the burden of proof employees...more