An onsite manager alleged race and sex discrimination, but the court never reached the substance of her claims. Why? Because she worked for a contractor—not the school network she sued. The case was dismissed.
Here’s what every employer who works with vendors, staffing firms, or third-party service providers needs to know. Continue reading
Employers, take note: vague safety concerns and “we did our best” no longer cut it. A recent Third Circuit opinion revived a religious accommodation claim from a firefighter who wanted to keep his beard for faith-based reasons. Applying the Supreme Court’s Groff v. DeJoy standard, the court made it clear: you can’t just trim around the edges of Title VII. Continue reading
Suppose an employee, an adherent of a religion you’ve never heard of, requests time off from work on certain religious observance days.
In a precedential decision issued on Friday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reinstate a plaintiff’s trial court victory for FMLA interference, concluding that when he requested leave for migraine headaches, he did not yet have a serious health condition.
Back in the day, it could be difficult for a plaintiff claiming disability discrimination even to prove that they had a disability. Continue reading
I’ll go ahead and file this one under: “Ya think?”
But perhaps I’m getting out over my skis. So, let’s see what you think. Continue reading
A man walks into a job interview. Continue reading
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee claiming discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that their employer treated them worse than someone else because of a protected characteristic such as race, gender, or national origin.
Last week, a federal appellate court hinted at some examples of when a plaintiff suffered “some harm” to a term or condition of employment, which would be enough to have a facially plausible claim of discrimination.
Yesterday, a federal appellate court issued a precedential opinion clarifying when employers must pay employees and provide certain benefits while they take short-term military leave under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”).
Earlier this month, a federal appellate court addressed a few situations involving retaliation claims in the workplace in which parties (and sometimes courts) may misapply the law, namely, Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964.
So, let’s clear this up. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog