| by
PhotoFunia-1532553475

Image Credit: Photofunia.com

Back in November, U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters (R-Calif.) along with co-sponsors U.S. Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) introduced the Workflex in the 21st Century Act. I had a big post here about Workflex, which The Society for Human Resource Development (SHRM) has endorsed and touted as “a first-of-its-kind combination of guaranteed paid leave and increased options for flexible work arrangements.”

Should I wait patiently while you click that link and refresh your recollection about Workflex?

Yeah ok, I’ll wait.

I’ll even wait for you to read this SHRM Fact Sheet too. Go ahead.

Now that you’re up to speed, you may be wondering, how does Eric get his teeth so white? whatever happened to Workflex?

Fortunately, I have a big update.

Continue reading

| by
shaking-hands-3091908_640

Image Credit: Pixabay.com (https://pixabay.com/en/shaking-hands-handshake-hands-3091908/)

Did you know that, for the past ten years, I have served as a volunteer mediator in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Mediation Program?

Separately, I’m also a private mediator, where I specialize in helping parties resolve all sorts of employment cases. Often, I’m called upon before arbitration or as an economical alternative to litigants using a retired judge as a mediator. Continue reading

| by
Ann-hopkins.jpg

By U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/40th/panel/hopkins.html, Public Domain, Link

Yesterday’s blog post highlighted the blistering dissent of Eleventh Circuit judge Hon. Robin S. Rosenbaum, as she criticized her colleagues for passing on the opportunity to reconsider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Judge Rosenbaum’s opinion, Title VII does afford those protections based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In that case, the Court concluded that sex stereotyping violates Title VII.  (It follows that Title VII precludes discrimination based on sexual orientation because of the failure to conform to the gender-based stereotype of loving someone of the opposite sex. Continue reading

| by

Elbert-P-Tuttle-US-Courthouse-01

By Eoghanacht [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons

Here’s a little taste of Hon. Robin S. Rosenbaum giving her colleagues from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals a piece of her mind:

The issue this case raises—whether Title VII protects gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination because their sexual preferences do not conform to their employers’ views of whom individuals of their respective genders should love—is indisputably en-banc-worthy…. I cannot explain why a majority of our Court is content to rely on the precedential equivalent of an Edsel with a missing engine, when it comes to an issue that affects so many people.

Continue reading

| by

Human Resources in discussion

By Arunkumar Umapathy [CC BY-SA 4.0 ], from Wikimedia Commons

In yesterday’s post about an Americans with Disabilities Act case, I quipped about how the first paragraph of the Sixth Circuit’s opinion foreshadowed a bad outcome for the plaintiff.

Here were are again.

Another ADA case. Another Sixth Circuit appeal (Hostettler v. College of Wooster –  opinion here). Another request for a modified work schedule. And another unsuccessful plaintiff at the lower court.

But, this wasn’t just any plaintiff. Continue reading

| by
pen-2912932_640

Image Credit: Pixabay.com (https://pixabay.com/en/pen-letters-leave-envelope-2912932/)

Imagine arriving at work where, waiting for you, is a letter addressed to you from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. You know that inside that large envelope is a copy of the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in the Americans with Disabilities Act case in which you previously filed an appeal on behalf of your client.

And it’s in those seconds before you tear open the envelope that you think maybe, just maybe, the appellate court would reverse the lower court’s ruling in favor of the employer and deliver justice for your client.

Then you start reading the first paragraph of the opinion: Continue reading

| by

3D Judges Gavel

By Chris Potter (Flickr: 3D Judges Gavel) [CC BY 2.0 ], via Wikimedia Commons

Yesterday, I blogged here about the most important employment law decision of 2018. It’s a case called Minarsky v. Susquehanna County (opinion here).

If you missed my post, well, it was long. 1,888 words long. So, here’s the super-condensed version: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a plaintiff might not complain about sexual harassment at work for several years but still have a viable hostile work environment claim if she genuinely believed — and the record supported — that it would be pointless to do so. Continue reading

“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Eric B. Meyer
| All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design