The Third Circuit just predicted that New Jersey’s “reverse discrimination” rule is incompatible with the NJLAD. Federal courts in New Jersey are no longer applying it.
Put simply, a performance improvement plan is designed to improve performance, not expose employers to liability. Courts used to see it that way too. That changed when the Supreme Court redefined what counts as an adverse employment action — and suddenly PIPs were in play.
TL;DR: An IT employee placed on a three-month performance improvement plan that she successfully completed did not suffer an adverse employment action under the ADEA. The First Circuit, applying the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, held that a PIP constitutes an adverse action only if it actually changes the terms or conditions of employment — and this one didn’t. The court also rejected the employee’s constructive discharge claim, finding that quitting ten months after finishing the PIP, with no one telling her to leave and no evidence of intolerable conditions, did not amount to a forced resignation.
She signed a severance release, collected her benefits, and then sued anyway. The Sixth Circuit just explained why that didn’t work – and why the employer’s paperwork made all the difference.
According to the EEOC, a company told its staffing agencies not to send women for laborer jobs because women would “distract” male workers. When the EEOC sued, the company turned around and sued the staffing agencies too. A federal court just explained why that doesn’t work.
Two supervisors warned a new hire in his first weeks on the job: file an EEO complaint against us, and we’ll end your government career. Then they did. Continue reading
Whatever the actual reason for firing an employee, the written explanation becomes evidence. A Mississippi restaurant is about to find out what that means. Continue reading
Some employment cases turn on close calls, messy comparators, or shaky documentation.
This one turned on something simpler: an employee who admitted to a string of workplace misconduct and still tried to turn the termination into a discrimination, retaliation, and hostile-work-environment case. Continue reading
Employers that rely on arbitration agreements should pay attention to a recent Sixth Circuit decision. One plausible sexual-harassment claim can keep an entire lawsuit in court—even claims that would otherwise go to arbitration. Continue reading
For nearly a decade, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said denying a transgender employee access to the restroom matching that employee’s gender identity violated Title VII.
Last month, the agency reversed course.
Private employers should read the fine print before changing anything. Continue reading
That escalated quickly.
A university fired its HR director and asked him to return his work laptop. He refused for months. Campus police eventually obtained a felony arrest warrant. When the former employee finally showed up with the laptop, officers arrested him. He then sued for retaliation. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog