Late last month, I blogged here about some smoke signals from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it may be backpedaling on pursuing discrimination claims on behalf of a transgender employee, in a case where the employer had raised a religious-freedom defense.
Since then, other dominos have fallen, which indicate that the Trump administration is reversing course on transgender rights.
It’s deja vu all over again.
When I conduct anti-harassment training for supervisors, one of the points I stress is that all complaints of harassment and discrimination — no matter how minor — must be taken seriously.
Why?
With over 24 hours to marinate, I think back on Super Bowl LI and I’m still amazed.
I mean, how good does The Fate of the Furious look! Pretty sure there was a submarine chasing an orange Lamborghini on a frozen tundra! Yeah, now I know what Charlie Sheen truly meant by “Winning!”
Look, my betting days (largely derivative of my Vegas card-counting past) are behind me. But, while I’m here to dispense non-legal employment-law advice — we’ll get to that in a sec — I can give you a little non-gambling wagering advice too. If I had a spare sawbuck, I’d plunk it down on a parlay of Jason Statham for Best Supporting Actor and The Rock/Vin Diesel (tie) splitting the Best Actor award at the 2018 Oscars. Just sayin’.
And, here you probably thought that your Respect Cup for me couldn’t runneth over.
Continuing with yesterday’s theme of appellate courts peeing on the Cheerios of plaintiffs in failure-to-accommodate cases…
Wait, can I say that?
***Checks blogging scriptures***
***burps***
Yep.
I hear many of you are dying for my hot take on how Tenth Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch may shape employment law as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Then again, those could be the voices in my head.
***Q-tips***
Ah, that’s better. Where was I? Oh yes, happy Groundhog Day.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its first precedential decision confirming that the honest-belief doctrine defeats a retaliation claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
In plain English, the court in Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC concluded that an employer can fire an employee whom it truly believes is misusing FMLA — even if the employer’s suspicion of FMLA fraud turns out to be wrong. That’s not FMLA retaliation.
The Employer Handbook Blog
