What happens if an employer takes adverse action against an employee based on a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that later turns out to be wrong? Suppose, for example, an employer fires an employee based on a genuine belief that the employee violated the employer’s policies, but it turns out that, in fact, the employee did not.
Appeals Court Rejects Disability Discrimination Claim of Employee with Supervisor-Induced Stress and Migraines
When an employee requests an accommodation or asserts a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer’s second question—right after “Are we even covered by the ADA?”—will likely be: “Did/does the employee have a disability?” (Claims from employees who are merely perceived as disabled are a topic for another day.) The definition of a
Is “OK, Boomer” OK?
In January, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts drew considerable media attention by asking, during the oral argument of an age discrimination case, Babb v. Wilkie, a question about the relevance of the phrase “OK, Boomer.” A Google search of “Chief Justice OK Boomer” will reveal articles from almost every serious media outlet putting
Virginia: the Next State to Protect LGBTQ Employees from Discrimination?
If you’re a regular reader of our blog, you probably know that the question of whether federal law prohibits employment discrimination against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity remains open, which the Supreme Court may (or may not) resolve this year. While the EEOC continues to move forward in processing
NJ Issues Guidance on Race Discrimination Based on Hairstyle
Recently, several jurisdictions have stated that discriminating against an employee on the basis of the employee’s hairstyle, where the hairstyle is closely associated with race, constitutes race discrimination. The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights has clarified its approach to this issue, recently issuing guidance on how it will apply the New Jersey Law Against
Supreme Court Hears Argument in LGBT Discrimination Cases: What’s Next?
As regular readers of our blog will already know, the issue of whether Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity has been a hot topic in federal litigation for several years. Our blog has regularly covered these developments and often expressed that this question will likely require clarification
Fifth Circuit Says EEOC Cannot Use 2012 Criminal Background History Guidance — What Does this Mean?
On August 6, 2019, in State of Texas v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its limited rulemaking and enforcement power when it issued its 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment
Males Mentoring Females: Don’t Let It Be a Thing of the Past
By Julianna Earp, Alexander Maultsby and Patti Ramseur
Strong business leaders keep their eyes open for unintended consequences—if our company adopts a new program, what could happen (positive or negative) that was not intended as part of our efforts?
Employers are seeing unintended consequences play out in their efforts to eliminate harassment in the
Maine Joins Growing Ranks of States Banning Salary History Inquiries
At this blog, we’ve written extensively about the proliferation of legislation at the state and local level to prohibit employers from inquiring about the salary or wage history of job applicants. As with state and local laws requiring employers to provide paid sick leave, laws restricting employers from making wage inquiries during the application
Disability Accommodations Can Take Many Forms
Often times when I am speaking to a client about an employee’s requested accommodation for a disability, we are talking about leave as that is often the request most difficult to accommodate. Another one that gives employers fits is “light duty.” But what about some other types of accommodations?
A recent Pennsylvania case reminds employers