A Retaliation Refresher: What's the Tea in L&E?
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 some situations, employees undergoing serious medical issues request accommodations that would require extensive time away from work or major modifications to their job duties. ...more
2025 is halfway over, and already, there has been significant activity and legal developments throughout the U.S. on the state and local level. Below is a recap of notable laws enacted throughout the U.S. that have become...more
Effective July 1, 2025, Indiana generally requires all employers provide unpaid leave for employees to attend school conferences and meetings for their children. Employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against an...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally prohibits covered employers from taking adverse actions against employees on the basis of race, sex, and other protected categories. Employee discipline is often the subject...more
We’ve all heard about and been astonished (or entertained) by the recent Coldplay concert kiss cam scandal involving the CEO and Chief People Officer of Astronomer, a data infrastructure and workflow company valued at over $1...more
"Some harm" is all it takes. A federal appeals court found this week that requiring an employee to enter an Employee Assistance Program may be an “adverse employment action” under the federal anti-discrimination laws....more
The internet lit up recently with viral footage from a “kiss cam” at a Coldplay concert in Boston, Massachusetts. The clip, now dubbed by some as “Coldplay Gate,” depicts the married CEO of Astronomer, Inc., having an...more
Colorado is raising the stakes for employers when it comes to compliance obligations and increased enforcement with the enactment of House Bill 25-1001 (the Law). The Law amends the Colorado Wage Act and goes into effect...more
In our recent webcast, “Terminating the Problem Employee," the Labor & Employment team shared key considerations for employers looking to terminate a “problem employee” while avoiding controversy and litigation. Below are our...more
Terminating an employee can be one of the most consequential decisions an employer can make. The best way to mitigate risk? Honesty....more
It was announced on July 7 that IBM had resolved a former consultant’s “reverse” discrimination claim for an undisclosed sum, closing the door on his Title VII race and sex discrimination lawsuit. This settlement is yet...more
In FY 2023, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) received 3,243 Whistleblower complaints filed under various statutes’ anti-retaliation provisions. OSHA is charged with investigating alleged retaliation...more
Among the first questions I ask when investigating a lawsuit accusing my client of discriminatory conduct is, “Who made the decision?” The reasons are simple. First, an adverse employment action – like termination,...more
On July 2, 2025, Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee signed into law House Bill No. 5506 SUB A. With the stroke of a pen, Rhode Island joined the growing list of states to ban mandatory employer-sponsored meetings regarding...more
Assume the following, you ask your company’s in-house counsel to handle a highly sensitive matter involving bribery of foreign officials. The employee is given access to confidential attorney-client privileged information...more
Employers are required to allow their employees in New York time off to serve as jurors and to be compensated for their time attending jury service and missing work. For the first time since 2003, the New York Judiciary Law...more
In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court has formalized and affirmed the legal standard for employment discrimination claims for non-minority groups under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....more
The Washington State Legislature has been busy as usual this session. Two bills with significant implications for employers operating in Washington have recently been signed into law by Governor Bob Ferguson: a state...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that courts cannot apply a heightened evidentiary standard to majority-group plaintiffs when deciding discrimination claims. The...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 2025 WL 1583264, (U.S. June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that majority group plaintiffs (in this instance, a heterosexual plaintiff) do not need to meet...more
A bipartisan bill pending before Congress would make it illegal to retaliate against employees who speak up about AI-related risks. Senators from both sides of the aisle introduced the AI Whistleblower Protection Act (S....more
More than a year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in its April 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. 346, 144 S. Ct. 967, 218 L. Ed. 2d 322 (2024) that employees need only...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, resolving a long-standing split among federal courts and clarifying the evidentiary standard for Title...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the split among federal circuits and held that the same standard used to evaluate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to all...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to meet a more stringent burden of proof in order to prove unlawful employment discrimination under Title VII of the...more