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
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
In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that transferring an employee to a new position with the same rank and pay may constitute an adverse action under Title VII. The recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis,...more
The Court of Appeal for Ontario (OCA) recently held that an employee may be awarded aggravated damages for an employer’s bad-faith conduct during the employee’s dismissal even in the absence of medical evidence identifying a...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
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
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
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that to sustain a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), plaintiffs do...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
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
Thus far, 2024 has been a whirlwind of new employment rules, statutes, guidance, and decisions for employers to grapple with and account for in their businesses. Among these decisions are a handful of rulings from the Supreme...more
In a recent decision, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining whether an adverse employment action is a sufficient basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII of the...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
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the threshold for employees to demonstrate discrimination under Title VII, the Sixth Circuit has expanded the scope of what employers...more
A Title VII plaintiff does not need to demonstrate that the injury alleged satisfies a significance test, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. ...more
In a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, a police sergeant alleged that she was transferred from one job to a less desirable job in the police department because of her sex....more
In what may be considered a “win” for employees, the United States Supreme Court recently clarified that an employee challenging a job transfer as “discriminatory” need only prove that they sustained “some” harm due to the...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
A National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge in San Francisco recently ruled that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy violated the National Labor Relations Act when he commented on labor unions through several media outlets....more
Picture this: You're just about set to open a new workplace in Smallsville. The only hurdle remaining is finding the right person to manage the new location. After giving this problem considerable thought, you think you've...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Muldrow vs. City of St. Louis, which held that Title VII – which bars employers from discriminating in decisions involving among other things, lateral transfers – does...more
In a recently decided case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a job transfer may demonstrate adverse action even when the transfer does not result in a loss of pay or other benefit. A unanimous Court held in Muldrow v. City of...more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (No. 22-193) and held that “some injury” is sufficient to establish a federal discrimination or...more
On April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that private employers can be liable for changing an employee’s working terms and conditions because of race or another protected status, even if the changes do not...more
Adverse employment action in employment discrimination claims are easier to prove with the U.S. Supreme Court’s much-anticipated April 17, 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff police sergeant...more
The Supreme Court last month made it easier for employees who are involuntarily transferred from one position to another to pursue employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....more