News & Analysis as of

Employees Adverse Employment Action

FordHarrison

EntertainHR: Helping Haverford – What Parks and Recreation Teaches Us About Employee Terminations

FordHarrison on

Parks and Recreation is a beloved mockumentary sitcom that focuses on the lives of several employees of the fictional Pawnee, Indiana’s Parks and Recreation Department. One of those characters is the sarcastic and...more

Littler

Ontario, Canada Appeal Court Confirms Employment Contract Frustrated by Employee’s Refusal to Comply With COVID-19 Vaccination...

Littler on

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

Littler

Dear Littler: Can we prevent an employee from maintaining an adult website?

Littler on

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

Ius Laboris

Dismissal for a single (serious) act

Ius Laboris on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

TIPS at the Coffee Shop: A Caffeinated Reminder About What Not to Do During Union Campaigns

The National Labor Relations Board issued yet another Starbucks decision this past week. Again, the Board upheld an administrative law judge’s opinion that Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act during a union’s...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

CFPB Issues Circular, Warning Against Whistleblower Intimidation

On July 24, 2024, the CFPB issued a circular detailing how companies may be breaking the law by requiring employees to sign broad nondisclosure agreements that could deter whistleblowing.  Under Section 1057(a) of the...more

Perkins Coie

Washington State Bans Captive Audience Meetings

Perkins Coie on

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

Ius Laboris

Workplace protections for reservists’ spouses in Israel

Ius Laboris on

In light of the ongoing war, a new amendment to Israeli law provides protection to the spouses of reservists. In accordance with the Veterans (Return to Work) Law, employers are already prohibited from dismissing...more

Ius Laboris

Canadian court upholds termination of unvaccinated worker

Ius Laboris on

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

Ius Laboris

Employment protections extended to infertility treatment

Ius Laboris on

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

Carlton Fields

Michigan Supreme Court Declines Application for Leave to Appeal Lower Court’s Vacation of Arbitration Award

Carlton Fields on

In Michigan AFSCME Council 25 v. County of Wayne, the Supreme Court of Michigan declined an application filed by Michigan AFSCME Council 25 and Affiliated Local 101 for leave to appeal a judgment of the circuit court and...more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Supreme Court Holds That Employees Need Not Show “Significant” Harm to Support a Title VII Discrimination Claim Based on a Job...

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

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

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

White Employee Fired Amidst Corporate Diversity Initiative Wins Discrimination Claim But Loses Multi-Million Dollar Punitive...

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Plaintiff, a white man, was a strong performer in his role before he was fired and replaced by three women, two of whom were racial minorities, amid a Diversity and Inclusion initiative that included a call to restructure the...more

Littler

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Finds Employer Discriminated Against Transgender Employee Based on Their Gender Identity...

Littler on

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

Littler

Connecticut Employers Can Terminate Employees Impaired by Medical Marijuana While Working; Appellate Court Also Provides Guidance...

Littler on

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

Epstein Becker & Green

Eleventh Circuit Ruling on Causation Standard a Win for Employers

Epstein Becker & Green on

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

United States Supreme Court Endorses Low Burden of Proof for Whistleblowers

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

Jones Day

Supreme Court Holds Proof of Retaliatory Intent Not Required for Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Claims

Jones Day on

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

Foley Hoag LLP

Supreme Court Ruling Eases Standard for Proving Whistleblower Retaliation Claims

Foley Hoag LLP on

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

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

Supreme Court Confirms Corporate Whistleblowers Don't Have to Prove Retaliatory Intent

Tackling the tricky issue of how a plaintiff proves an employer's “intent,” in an opinion issued today, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, corporate whistleblowers have...more

Akerman LLP - HR Defense

New Year, Same Analysis – The Eleventh Circuit Reiterates Proper Standard for Evaluating Employment Discrimination Claims

The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework used to evaluate employment discrimination claims may not be permanently cast aside, but a recent decision reminds us that it is not the only means through which employees can...more

Littler

Eleventh Circuit: McDonnell Douglas Is Not Be-All and End-All for Title VII Discrimination Claims

Littler on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh has spoken, and employers that once relied exclusively on McDonnell Douglas might need to rethink their litigation strategy in employment-discrimination cases. On December 12,...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

First, Sixth Circuits Affirm Dismissal of ADA Claims

Considering the termination of a high school teacher who underwent hip surgery and the refusal of a hospital to allow a nursing student’s service dog, the U.S. Court of Appeals, First and Sixth Circuits, both affirmed...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Justices Mull Fundamental Element of Proof in Title VII Case During Oral Argument In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: One of the most anticipated employment cases of the term was recently argued before the United States Supreme Court. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis the Court requested the parties address the issue:...more

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

Supreme Court Poised to Eliminate Title VII Material Harm Requirement

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a key case involving the definition of an “adverse employment action” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, the Court...more

60 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide