If you are an employer covered by the federal Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi), you are probably familiar with the “ultimate employment decision” standard: In determining whether an employee suffered an adverse action under Title VII, you look to only “ultimate” decisions (e.g., hiring, termination, non-promotion). The landscape has just changed. In
Recently the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule that provides, among many other things (the rule is more than 700 pages long), (1) an update to the formula DOL uses to set “prevailing wages” under the Davis-Bacon Act and related regulations, (2) enforcement options for DOL to penalize employers for retaliation, and
Employment lawyers always win war story contests at cocktail parties. Facts like the ones in Davis v. ULP provide ample fodder for those type of conversations.
The University of Louisville Physicians (ULP) hired Frank Davis as a surgical assistant. After 10 months on the job, Davis’s supervisor, Lisa Motley, met with
Guaranteed confidentiality with regard to employee disputes may be becoming a thing of the past if the current tide of legislation continues. As we blogged about several weeks ago, Congress just banned arbitration agreements for sexual harassment claims. Even more stringent than that new federal legislation, Washington and California have both recently passed a “Silenced
There has been a lot of discussion over the last few years about the joint employer test for liability under employment statutes. Whether it be Uber drivers in California or the back and forth over the Trump administration’s change of DOL rules, it can be hard to follow. This week, the Second Circuit Court of
In another chapter in litigation alliteration, in Maner v. Dignity Health, f/k/a Catholic Healthcare West, the Ninth Circuit held that a male employee’s theory that his supervisor’s long-term romantic relationship with a co-worker could not be the basis for his own Title VII claim that he was discriminated due to his sex. The Court
You may recall our blog post last summer recapping the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that held discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited by Title VII. After that decision, we encouraged each of you to update your EEO and harassment policies, update your application forms and websites, train your
Do you typically include a “no rehire” clause in your settlements with soon to be former employees? How about agreements with other companies that you will not “poach” each other’s employees? If your answer to either of those questions is yes, you should keep an eye on some New York legislation that could impact those
The EEOC has released its annual report on discrimination charges filed across the country for the fiscal year 2020. So, how does the data line up with the 2019 data (a rundown of which can be seen here)?
Yet again, workplace discrimination charges are down – there were 67,448 new
Your former employee sues you, but your employee-plaintiff filed for bankruptcy. You diligently research the bankruptcy filings and discover the employee did not disclose the lawsuit against you in those filings, which are sworn to under oath. You might have a winner to get out of the case, right? Well, it is not quite that