Search
The Employer Handbook BlogThe Beer Was Flowing, But the ADA Compliance Seemed Flat
When two bartenders disclosed medical conditions, a New York brewery pulled them from the schedule, according to the EEOC. That’s not how the ADA works. Continue reading
Articles Posted in Hiring & Firing
Shoe Me the Reasonable Accommodation!
When a dress code update clashes with an ADA accommodation, the courtroom might be the next stop. Continue reading
It wasn’t the cancer. It wasn’t the age. It was the failed business model.
A senior executive with prostate cancer helped land the company’s biggest contract ever and was promoted with a pay raise. Months later, he was fired. He believed his age and health had something to do with it—and brought claims of discrimination. Continue reading
Burned by the Tape: When Secretly Recording Work Meetings Gets You Fired
Employees might think pressing record is harmless—especially when trying to document what’s said in a heated meeting. But one Director of Social Services found out the hard way that secret recordings—even legal ones—can land employees on the unemployment line. Continue reading
Burned by the ADA: When Legal Weed Gets You Fired
Turns out a medical marijuana card can’t cure everything—especially if what you’ve got is a bad case of ADA expectations. Here’s a lesson in what happens when federal law refuses to roll with the times. Continue reading
Samuels Sues Over EEOC Ouster as Supreme Court Benches NLRB’s Wilcox
A major legal battle is unfolding over whether President Trump had the power to fire two Senate-confirmed officials from independent federal agencies. One is Jocelyn Samuels, formerly of the EEOC. The other is Gwynne Wilcox, who had just started a second term on the NLRB. Their cases are raising serious questions about how much control a president can exercise over agencies that are supposed to be independent. Continue reading
The EEOC Defines “Illegal DEI” – What Employers Need to Know
For several weeks, employment law and HR professionals have been hearing about the term “illegal DEI.” But what did “illegal DEI” actually mean—especially to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal discrimination watchdog? Until recently, that was anyone’s guess. Continue reading
No Women Allowed? That’ll Cost You $1.6 Million
Recently, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has garnered headlines (and blog posts) over a shift in enforcement priorities to issues such as “anti-American” bias in hiring and defending women’s rights to single-sex spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, in the workplace. To say these were previously on the backburner would be an understatement, unless the stove had ten or so rows of burners.
But, don’t get it twisted. Continue reading
Was This an Example of “Illegal DEI”? We’ll Never Know For Sure.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion—better known as DEI—has been a hot topic lately. While DEI itself isn’t inherently illegal, critics have latched onto the idea of so-called “illegal DEI.” What exactly does that mean? Unclear. But a recent federal court case involving a law student who said she was discouraged from applying for a summer internship because of diversity-focused hiring criteria was giving me “illegal DEI” vibes.
The catch? Even if everything she claimed was true, the court never actually ruled on whether the hiring policy was legal or not. Here’s why.
The Lawsuit That Never Got Off the Ground
No, Your Religion Doesn’t Justify Workplace Bigotry—And, No, the Supreme Court Won’t Save You
Some people seem to think the workplace is their personal soapbox, where they can broadcast whatever pops into their heads—no matter how offensive, misguided, or just plain dumb. One former employee learned this the hard way when he posted an anti-LGBTQ+ comment on the company intranet, mistakenly thinking it was an anonymous survey response. His employer quickly shut that down, and so did the courts. When he appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, hoping for a lifeline, the justices responded yesterday with a firm “no thanks.”
Turns out, the highest court in the land had better things to do than entertain a “my bigotry is protected” argument. Continue reading