Sometimes retaliation isn’t loud. There’s no demotion, no firing, no pay cut. It shows up quietly instead – more work than everyone else gets, repeated just often enough to send a message.
That kind of retaliation can be harder to spot, but as a recent decision out of the District of Columbia shows, it can still land an employer in serious trouble. Continue reading
Employers often assume that launching an investigation is a safe harbor.
The Tenth Circuit just delivered a reminder that when decisionmakers rely on a flawed investigation, the process can matter as much as the decision itself.
TL;DR: The Tenth Circuit revived two Title VII retaliation claims after a physician reported alleged sexual harassment by another doctor and was later terminated and reported to a state licensing board. Although an investigation alone is rarely actionable retaliation, the court held a jury could find that a one-sided internal investigation – including skipped interviews, selective fact-gathering, and uncritical reliance by senior decisionmakers – supplied the retaliatory animus and causation for materially adverse actions under a cat’s paw theory.
Retaliation requires awareness. Without it, there’s no causal link—no matter how suspicious the timing may feel. A recent Third Circuit decision underscores a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil reality employers should understand. Continue reading
Sometimes the biggest workplace stories are the ones that hit closest to home for HR professionals. A recent jury verdict involving the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is one of those moments, not because of who the defendant was, but because the issues are ones every employer faces. Continue reading
Supervisors sometimes say things they should never say. When that happens, employers usually brace for impact. But this case shows how strong documentation and independent decision-making can prevent one person’s bad behavior from controlling the outcome. Continue reading
Some lawsuits keep you guessing. This one did not. When a court reviews missed deadlines, clear directives, and an internal investigation confirming the same issues, the outcome writes itself.
And as the Fourth Circuit reminded everyone, reporting discrimination does not make documented performance problems disappear. Continue reading
Some workplace retaliation theories sound plausible at first glance. But Title VII’s protections are far narrower than many employees assume. A recent Eleventh Circuit decision digs into a niche but important point: whether a criminal subpoena can qualify as Title VII “participation.”
This is part one of two. Tomorrow, we look at the court’s take on whether two unwanted physical encounters created a hostile work environment. Continue reading
A discrimination complaint can be genuine without being legally protected.
An employee learned that the hard way when her retaliation claim flatlined before it even got to trial.
A magistrate judge in a federal court recently reminded employers that even a sincere complaint has to be objectively reasonable before it triggers retaliation protection under Title VII. Continue reading
The Supreme Court recently made it easier for employees to prove discrimination, lowering the bar from “serious harm” to “some harm.” That change came from a 2024 sex discrimination case, but its reasoning can influence other Title VII claims too. A new decision from the federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shows that even when courts apply that softer standard to quid pro quo harassment claims, retaliation still requires a higher level of proof, and neither test was met here. Continue reading
A recent federal case shows how a workplace investigation can flip fast—from harassment complaint to defamation claim. The employer followed the playbook and won. The accuser did not. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog