The university kept paying its softball coach during an investigation. Its no-contact order also stopped her from teaching, and the suspension became a $300,000 sex bias judgment.
The company had decided to eliminate his job before he told his manager about his planned parental leave. So why did he get his termination notice in April when the other people on the layoff list remained until July?
A federal judge dismissed this white employee’s hostile workplace claim last year. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered the alleged training remarks alongside years of workplace incidents and gave the claim new life. Continue reading
Pride flags came down. Pride stickers were covered and prohibited. An LGBTQ+ student club received extra field-trip scrutiny. That is how three teachers described the pattern in their complaint. Continue reading
The employer hired an outside investigator to examine workplace concerns. A former HR employee later relied on what the investigator allegedly documented to support her own bias claims.
HR can ask an employee to explain a religious conflict. The trouble begins when the review turns into a theological examination.
Management enforced its drug-testing rule. The exceptions it made afterward created the bigger problem.
The company had an anti-harassment policy, trained its employee-relations manager to investigate complaints, and opened one. Then it assigned the accused supervisor to counsel the employee who complained about him.
Calling a termination a reduction in force does not make the selection process disappear. If the paper trail cannot explain the choice, a jury may get the opportunity to examine it.
The DOL has finally answered the workplace question keeping America awake: May employees take home a puppy without bringing home an overtime claim? Please remain calm: the puppies are fine.
The Employer Handbook Blog