noun-modify-4742615-1024x1024

A little over five years ago, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued an employer for disability discrimination. It claimed that the company, which temporarily granted a request to allow an employee with night blindness to work an earlier shift to avoid an evening commute, should have agreed to extend the accommodation. Its failure to do so violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC alleged. Continue reading

noun-pipe-2626535-1024x1024

I’m speaking figuratively, of course. Taxpayer dollars do not support judges bruising and battering litigants who appear in court.

However, the defendant is probably still smarting from this recent Fifth Circuit decision, in which the court overturned a lower court ruling dismissing the plaintiff’s claims that the defendant failed to accommodate his religious beliefs. Continue reading

noun-vacation-6142998-1024x1024

Many of you accumulate vacation days at work throughout the year. So did the plaintiff in this recent federal court decision. She alleged that when her employer denied her requests to use her unused, accrued vacation in 2018 and 2019, it discriminated against her based on her sex, seemingly because it allowed other men to use vacation on the dates she wanted.

Is that sex discrimination? Continue reading

Posted in:
Updated:

noun-letter-5370988-1024x1024

An employee who claims retaliation in federal court must demonstrate they suffered treatment was “materially adverse,” i.e., something that could reasonably have dissuaded a reasonable worker from participating in a protected activity, like complaining about discrimination.

Last night, I read a decision from a federal judge in New York weighing allegations that the plaintiff’s supervisors knew the plaintiff had filed several EEO complaints and then retaliated against her.

But were the acts of retaliation “materially adverse”? Not really. No.

Continue reading

“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information