The Employer Handbook Blog

Can an Employee with Tourette’s Use Slurs and Keep Their Job? The ADA and Workplace Boundaries

February 24, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

At the British Academy Film Awards – better known as the BAFTAs, the U.K.’s version of the Oscars – a man with Tourette’s Syndrome interrupted the ceremony while actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were presenting an award, shouting a racial slur.

That public moment raises a workplace question: If an employee with Tourette’s involuntarily uses the N-word around Black colleagues or the B-word around women, does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require the employer to keep him in his job? Continue reading

Shifting Reasons and Skipped Steps — and Why the Employer Still Won

February 23, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

ChatGPT-Image-Feb-15-2026-03_38_05-PM-1024x683

Two arguments show up in almost every termination lawsuit: that the employer’s reason changed, and that it didn’t follow its own policy. The Eleventh Circuit recently explained why neither argument, without more, is enough to get a case to a jury. Continue reading

You updated your arbitration agreement. You rolled it out electronically. You included an opt-out. That should be enough – right?

February 20, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

ChatGPT-Image-Feb-15-2026-03_57_50-PM-1024x683

Under basic contract law, yes. But thanks to the Ending Forced Arbitration Act, that may not be the end of the story. Continue reading

Fasten Your Seatbelts: The Honest Belief Doctrine Lands Again

February 19, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

ChatGPT-Image-Feb-15-2026-03_52_37-PM-1024x683

Not every workplace conflict that creates turbulence makes it to a jury. This one didn’t. The employer’s investigation held up under the honest-belief doctrine. Continue reading

Claude, ChatGPT, and Privilege: Proceed With Caution, Employers

February 18, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

A recent Southern District of New York decision is being described as “AI destroys privilege.”

That’s not what the court held. But employers using consumer AI tools in connection with employment decisions should pay attention. Continue reading

Return to Office Doesn’t Mean Return to “No”: What Private Employers Can Learn from the EEOC’s Telework Guidance

February 17, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

Remote work policies are tightening. But the Americans with Disabilities Act did not disappear when companies decided the office feels collaborative again.

Last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued federal-sector guidance on telework accommodations for employees with disabilities. Although written for federal agencies under the Rehabilitation Act, that statute incorporates ADA standards. So if you are a private employer navigating return-to-office mandates, this guidance is directly relevant. Continue reading

Presidents’ Day: Honoring leadership, patience, and the occasional deep sigh.

February 16, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

ChatGPT-Image-Feb-15-2026-04_28_16-PM-683x1024

When an Accommodation Solves One Problem – but May Create Another

February 13, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

COVID vaccination mandates may be behind us, but the lawsuits they generated are still shaping how courts analyze religious accommodation under Title VII. This Third Circuit decision is a reminder that an accommodation can still be challenged when it allegedly creates a new burden. Continue reading

Why “This Is Unfair” Isn’t a Retaliation Claim

February 12, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

Employees do not need to use legal buzzwords to be protected from retaliation. But they do need to complain about the right thing.
General workplace grievances are not the same as opposing unlawful discrimination, and courts continue to enforce that distinction. Continue reading

When an Ultimatum Turns a “Resignation” Into a Jury Question

February 11, 2026 | by Eric B. Meyer

Constructive discharge is a high bar. But an ultimatum, delivered the wrong way and on the wrong timeline, can be enough to clear it.

That was the lesson from a recent federal court decision involving a pregnant employee who was told she could either keep working under at-will conditions or take six weeks of pay and leave immediately. The employer framed it as a choice. The court said a jury could see it as no choice at all. Continue reading