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 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which arose out of a sex discrimination claim filed by a female police officer. Officer Muldrow was transferred to a different position within...more
Performance improvement plans or PIPs are an effective tool to document an employee’s work issues, establishing constructive goals over a set time frame. Ideally, the employee improves their performance and works with...more
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a longstanding rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts that imposed a...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But does that protection apply equally to white, male, or...more
A recent opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania serves a win to a medical marijuana card-holder who brought claims against an employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Pennsylvania Medical...more
Three recent court decisions provide important reminders for businesses with employees in Massachusetts. One involves application of the Massachusetts Wage Act to remote workers; one clarifies potential liability for...more
Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more
In the brilliant 1993 movie The Fugitive, there is an iconic scene in which the wrongly accused Dr. Richard Kimble emphatically tells Deputy U.S. Marshal Samuel Gerard, “I didn’t kill my wife!” Gerard responds, “I don’t...more
Last month, in Nawara v. Cook County Municipality, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said a violation of ADA protections from medical examinations or inquiries counts as discrimination on account of disability, regardless...more
Plaintiff brought action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after being terminated by Defendant without receiving pre-adverse notice, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)....more
On April 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) issued a landmark ruling that could allow non-disabled workers to recover back pay under a...more
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently provided significant guidance resolving uncertainty about the scope of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act’s (WFEA) prohibition against discrimination based on an employee’s or...more