The Chartwell Chronicles: Release & Resignation
The Impact of the Great Resignation
DE Under 3: U.S. Labor Secretary Walsh Expected to Resign
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
Federal Agency Charges Muslim Teen Was Harassed, Retaliated Against, and Forced to Quit - ST. LOUIS – National restaurant chain Chipotle violated federal law when a manager at the company’s Lenexa, Kansas location harassed...more
After nearly a decade of litigation, in Godrey v. State of Iowa et al, Case No. 19-1954 (June 30, 2021), the Iowa Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict granting $1.5 million in damages and $3.1 million in attorneys’ fees to...more
Warmington v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Minn. (April 21, 2020) - PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Warmington, a highly accomplished and nationally recognized track and field coach, resigned in...more
WeWork co-founder wants to get PAAAAAID, so he’s suing SoftBank in an attempt to force it to “go through with its canceled deal to buy $3 billion of the company’s shares, accusing the Japanese conglomerate and its Vision Fund...more
People with disabilities have legal protections under both federal and state law. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits an employer from taking adverse actions against a person because of a person’s...more
More than a bit of drama in the auto world yesterday, with General Motors suing rival Fiat Chrysler, accusing it of “bribing United Auto Workers officials to gain competitive advantages in contract negotiations.” The UAW’s...more
The New Jersey Appellate Division in Portilla v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., recently upheld the dismissal of a constructive discharge lawsuit by a registered nurse, lawyer, and self-described “paradigmatic...more
On May 23, 2019, the New Jersey District Court in Kunal Shah v. Meditab Software, Inc. refused to dismiss the retaliation claim of a software company’s former Chief Executive Officer, even though he notified the company of...more
Under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), also known as the “whistleblower statute,” it is unlawful to fire an employee “solely for refusing to participate in, or for refusing to remain silent about, illegal...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Employers face a tough challenge in trying to balance their obligations under the ADA with efforts to enforce workplace rules. A recent decision out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth...more
Employers in the health care industry are dealing with a growing number of employment law challenges. In this edition of Take 5, we identify the key issues confronting health care employers and discuss how to manage these...more
Last month, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee’s protected activity must be the “but for” cause of an adverse action to support a claim for retaliation under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The Court...more
They say that timing is everything — or at least now it is for so-called “constructive discharge” claims. Last month, the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision, solidified the rule that the time within which an...more
On May 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Green v. Brennan, Postmaster General, in which the Court gave aggrieved employees in workplace discrimination cases more time to file complaints against...more
Title VII and related federal civil rights laws contain short administrative claims periods that often result in preclusion of actions filed after expiration of these dates. These exclusions lead to frequent litigation...more
The United States Supreme Court resolved a split among appellate circuits about when an employee must take action to pursue a constructive discharge claim. The Court held that the 45-day limitation period for a federal civil...more
On May 23, 2016, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split over the deadline for employees to pursue their administrative remedies in connection with constructive discharge claims under Title VII. Generally, employees must...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations for purposes of filing a claim alleging constructive discharge begins to run on the date that the employee resigns, as opposed to the last discriminatory...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the statute of limitations for an employee’s Title VII constructive discharge claim begins on the date of the employee’s notice of resignation. Green v. Brennan, No. 14-613 (May 23,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the statute of limitations period for constructive discharge claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VII) begins to run from the date that the employee gives the...more
On May 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Green v. Brennan, holding that the statute of limitations for a constructive discharge claim begins to run at the time the employee resigns. While the...more
Federal law requires a governmental employee to file a constructive discharge claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 45 days of the “matter alleged to be discriminatory.” The vagueness of that phrase...more
The Supreme Court ruled, on May 23, 2016, that for employees alleging that they were “constructively discharged” from their employment (as opposed to terminated by their employer), the statute of limitations begins to run...more
On May 23, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided when the limitations period for filing a lawsuit begins to run for a federal employee claiming he or she resigned—or was “constructively discharged”—due to...more