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
Do you have a “no fault” attendance policy or some other way in which employees get points for absences? If so, be careful. A recent Eleventh Circuit matter, EEOC v. Eberspaecher North America, Inc. suggests that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wants to check out those policies to see if there is an ADA
Employers sometimes face difficult decisions after learning of an employee’s disability. What if you learn of a disability after ongoing repeated employment deficiencies or even after a disciplinary or discharge decision already has been made? Do you stay on course for the discharge? Add more time (give them another chance)? Reverse course completely? As with
Is your employee handbook a binding contract? A recent case from the Alabama Supreme Court, Davis v. City of Montevallo, says sometimes it is. Many employers issue handbooks to set forth guidelines for what employers expect of employees, and also what employees can expect from their jobs. In at-will employment states, companies think of
For employers, figuring out what constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII may seem elusive. In general, an adverse employment action is an ultimate employment decision that affects job duties, compensation or benefits. There are obvious ones like termination, demotion and failure to promote. But what about ones like shift changes, days off and other more
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
Can a social media firestorm be the basis for an employment decision? Although it may seem like a lifetime ago, in the spring of 2020, the internet’s attention turned to a viral video of a white woman in Central Park who called 911 about a black man who she said was threatening her life. Enter
Mississippi recently passed House Bill 1509 (the “act”) codifying employees’ right to choose whether to be vaccinated against COVID-19, which some commentators believe would limit employers’ ability to impose mandatory vaccine requirements. But private employers with vaccine mandates can breathe easy. The act does not create a basis for a wrongful termination claim against a
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
Although the issue of whether someone can sue a church for employment discrimination doesn’t come up often, in Our Lady Of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the Supreme Court expanded the ministerial exception that precludes certain employment claims. This is big news for religious employers.
Just like every other employer, churches and religious institutions sometimes