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
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
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
When transferring an employee or making changes to their job duties, employers now face an increased risk of claims under Title VII. On April 17, the US Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs alleging discrimination...more
The Supreme Court made it easier for claimants to assert discrimination claims under Title VII in its April 17 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, et al. Previously, courts required a plaintiff to show that a workplace...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
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 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
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 January 10, 2024, the Iowa Court of Appeals filed its opinion in Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., et al., which involved a former employee who was terminated for refusing to submit to a random workplace drug test....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
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
On August 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, abandoned a decades-old interpretation that discrimination must be related to an “ultimate employment...more
The Supreme Court’s blockbuster decisions last term dominated the headlines – and many rulings will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an...more
Employers in Connecticut need to be aware that Connecticut law makes the free speech provisions of both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and those of the Connecticut Constitution applicable to...more
A ruling of the National Labor Relations Board in favor of an employee fired for using vulgar language on a company bulletin board was affirmed in August by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ...more
Ending years of discussion about the scope of state law employment protections for individuals who use marijuana recreationally, the Nevada Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a complaint by an...more
On August 15 in Roberts v. Gestamp W. Va., LLC, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia) concluded that a jury must decide whether an employee’s Facebook message to his...more
In Michelle Roman v. Hertz Local Edition Corp., a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Hertz, and against former employee Michelle Roman, whose...more
In BC Hydro and Power Authority and IBEW, Local 258, Re, 2022 CarswellBC 837, Arbitrator Gabriel Somjen decided that the mandatory vaccination policy of BC Hydro, British Columbia’s primary electricity supplier, was...more