A jury awarded a sexual harassment plaintiff $831,028. The employer tried to knock that down to $181,028 using a Title VII damages cap. A federal appeals court just said: you waived it.
Here’s a scenario HR nightmares are made of: an employee allegedly invents a sexual harassment accusation to eliminate a rival for a coveted position. The rival gets fired. The employer gets sued for defamation.
Firing a medical marijuana user after a positive drug test may seem straightforward — until a federal court explains why it isn’t.
HR professionals are known for their abundant free time and total absence of compliance anxiety, so naturally next week brings two more things to add to the list. AI hiring liability and immigration updates — back to back, Tuesday and Wednesday. Could be worse. Could be a conference.
Two colleagues of mine are tackling exactly these problems, and you should show up to both. Continue reading
Granting a religious accommodation request and then placing the employee on indefinite unpaid leave can itself be retaliation. A federal district court in Illinois recently refused to dismiss a Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit built on exactly that theory.
Who would have guessed that the most interesting religious discrimination issue of the week would show up on a Major League Baseball field?
When a coworker grabs a colleague three times, a Seventh Circuit majority says a jury could find sexual harassment. The employer still won. The reason why is more useful to HR than the result.
An excellent teacher with a progressive disability wanted paid leave to get a guide dog. Her employer offered unpaid leave instead. A federal appeals court just said that was enough.
A cocktail server with a foot disability wore Skechers sneakers for two years under an accommodation her employer granted. When new management decided sneakers didn’t meet appearance standards, the employer narrowed the accommodation and eventually terminated her for refusing to comply. Most of the lawsuit went with her.
A racial slur used in 2007 was still admissible evidence at a 2024 trial. The employer’s failure to address it helped produce a $21 million verdict.
The Employer Handbook Blog