| by

noun-construction-2178637

On Wednesday, I blogged about a woman who worked as a “helper” for a construction company. She alleged that she had to endure misogynist comments from her general manager, who told her in front of others that, since she had “t*** and an a**,” she could not perform certain functions of her job that would otherwise position her for advancement within the company.

But that isn’t the half of it. Continue reading

| by

noun-construction-2178637

A woman received a promotion at a construction company from laborer to helper. Helpers either work on the ground or “at elevation.” The woman had experience working at elevation at another company. She wanted to work at elevation again in her new job to improve her skills because advancements would bring pay raises and advance her craft.

But there was a problem. Continue reading

by
Posted in: Sex
Updated:

| by

noun-supreme-court-149365

Last May, I wrote about this religious discrimination case involving an employer’s duty to accommodate a plaintiff who needed Sundays off to observe his religion. The court decided the case in favor of the employer, which led to this appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in August, asking that it revisit its 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. In Hardison, the Court concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 does not require a religious accommodation if it results in more than a de minimis cost to the employer, i.e., an undue hardship.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Continue reading

| by

noun-father-and-son-4387083

Yesterday, I wrote about a man who claimed that his employer retaliated against him by forcing him to resign after he objected to attending workplace training on anti-racism and gender identity.

It was a good story. We employment lawyers have plenty of them. But, perhaps, it wasn’t great.

But what if I told you that the man’s son also worked for the same employer, objected to attending the same training modules, and eventually sued the same employer for race and religious discrimination? Continue reading

| by

noun-handcuffs-4349114

On Thursday, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a new rule prohibiting employers from imposing noncompetes on their workers. I wrote about it on Friday and spent the weekend reading all 216 pages of the official “Non-Compete Clause Rule Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” So, let’s discuss it on Zoom today.

Continue reading

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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