Search
How an Employer Survived a Discrimination Claim After Violating Its Own Hiring Policies

The city’s civil-service commission told it to follow its own hiring policies. It didn’t. It still won.

The city’s civil-service commission told it to follow its own hiring policies. It didn’t. It still won.

The court called it “repugnant and racially hostile.” It still wasn’t enough. A recent appellate decision affirming summary judgment for the employer on a hostile work environment claim is a useful reminder of how high the severe-or-pervasive bar actually is.

The bar for a hostile work environment claim is “extremely high.” A White correctional officer just found out how high.
A law firm partner apparently missed every harassment training ever offered and made a comment that belongs in a museum of worst-possible workplace decisions. The firm’s response, though, was textbook. The case got dismissed.

The $11.5 million verdict against SHRM survived. Now the court’s explanation of why offers a sharper lesson than the verdict itself.

An employee returned from his third round of FMLA leave and found a performance improvement plan waiting for him. That looks terrible. But a jury will never hear about it.

An employee complained to HR about discrimination. About two and a half months later, the employer skipped progressive discipline, gave no warning, and fired her the same day over emails. Most people would expect that case to go to a jury. It didn’t. Continue reading

One racial slur. One termination. Zero liability. The Third Circuit’s newest hostile work environment decision is a masterclass in what prompt employer action actually looks like.

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.

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.