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
Some employers try. The Fourth Circuit just explained why that trick doesn’t work for these federal discrimination claims. Continue reading
A manager allegedly makes racially inappropriate jokes. Months later, the company eliminates a position in a nationwide cost-cutting initiative and reduces an employee’s hours. So she sues for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
But she loses. Continue reading
A single slur can sink an employer. It can also survive summary judgment. Two recent federal decisions show why context — especially who said it and how — still controls. Continue reading
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
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
Most employment cases fall apart because the evidence is thin or the comparators don’t line up.
This one fell apart because of what the employee herself admitted – under oath. Continue reading
Courts see plenty of promotion disputes that boil down to one familiar complaint: I should have gotten the job.
The Fourth Circuit just explained why that argument usually is not enough. Continue reading
Sometimes the biggest workplace stories are the ones that hit closest to home for HR professionals. A recent jury verdict involving the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is one of those moments, not because of who the defendant was, but because the issues are ones every employer faces. Continue reading
Most employers are not trying to police anyone’s hairstyle, but vague grooming or “professional appearance” rules can sometimes cause problems. Pennsylvania’s upcoming CROWN Act aims to prevent that by making it clear that hair texture and protective styles are protected traits under the PHRA. That means it is a good time for employers to review their policies and make sure they line up with the new standards. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog