Showing 74 posts in Discrimination.
Employer’s "100% Healed" Policy Did Not Support "Regarded as" Disability Claim
A long-haul truck driver requested a transfer to a local driving route for personal reasons. Shortly after transferring, the driver discovered that the increased lifting requirements of the local position aggravated a preexisting back injury. Consequently, the driver requested a transfer back to a long-haul position. His request was denied based on the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement. As a result, the driver went on medical leave. The driver returned with restrictions from his treating physician that prevented him from performing the physical work required as part of the local route and stating that he could only work as a long-haul driver. The employer informed the driver that he could not return to work until he was released without restrictions. The driver sued the employer, alleging that the employer’s “100% healed” policy established that the employer regarded him as substantially limited in the major life activity of working in violation of the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected this argument because the driver failed to establish that the employer believed that he was unable to work in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. Absent such a showing, the driver could not establish that the employer regarded him as disabled simply because it required him to establish that he was fully able to perform the specific requirements of the job he was performing for the employer. While implementing a “100% healed” policy may not serve as a per se violation of the ADA, employers must carefully apply such a policy to ensure that it does not trigger liability and should consult with counsel regarding any concerns.
Powers v. USF Holland, Inc., No. 10-2363 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011)
Transsexual Employee Covered by 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause
A public employee was terminated after she alerted her supervisors of her intent to transition from a man to a woman and come to work as a woman. The decision to terminate the employee was based on the employer’s perception of the employee as “a man dressed as a woman and made up as a woman” and on the “sheer fact of the transition.” The employee sued the employer, alleging claims of sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that discriminating against someone on the basis of his or her gender nonconformity constitutes sex-based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. In effect, discriminating against someone who fails to act according to socially prescribed gender roles constitutes actionable discrimination. Public employers should be aware that the Equal Protection Clause provides another legal basis for some employees, including individuals who otherwise may not be able to claim protected status under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to contest gender discrimination in the employment context. While this opinion is somewhat limited to public employers, all employers should also refrain from taking disciplinary action against individuals solely for not conforming with societal gender norms, as similar legal theories have been successfully litigated under Title VII.
Glenn v. Brumby, No. 10-14833 & No. 10-15015 (11th Cir. Dec. 6, 2011)
Ledbetter act only Affects Limitations Period for Claims Involving Actual Discrimination in Pay
In 2003 and 2004, a school district eliminated two employees’ custodial positions. The district offered the employees lower-paying janitorial jobs along with a promise to maintain their prior pay for two years. The employees accepted and continued to receive higher custodial wages until the pay cuts took effect in 2005 and 2006. When those pay cuts went into effect, the employees filed administrative charges alleging that the school district had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by forcing them into lower-paying positions because of their age. The district court concluded that the charges were barred because they had not been filed within 300 days of the discriminatory decisions in 2003 and 2004, as required by the ADEA. The employees appealed based upon the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Act). The Act changed how the limitations period is calculated for claims under the ADEA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, that involve “discrimination in compensation.” Under the Act, in applicable cases, each paycheck issued to an employee is treated as a new act of discrimination, and thus each paycheck resets the 300-day limitations period. The employees argued that their charges were filed within 300 days of their most recent paychecks, and therefore were timely under the Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that the Act was intended as a narrow adjustment that only applies to claims involving actual discrimination in rates of pay (i.e., unequal pay for equal work). In this case, the employees had alleged discrimination in their demotion, not that younger employees were paid more for equal work. Accordingly, the employees’ 2005 and 2006 paychecks were not fresh acts of discrimination under the Act, and their claims were time-barred. This decision is a positive development for employers and if followed by other federal courts will limit the Act to claims involving actual pay discrimination and will not allow employees to bring stale claims involving other forms of discrimination.
Almond v. Unified Sch. Dist. #501, No. 10-3315 (10th Cir. Nov. 29, 2011).
Separation Agreement Improperly Admitted to Prove Employer’s Liability
Many employers use separation agreements when severing the employment relationship with employees. These releases and/or offers to compromise are often protected by evidentiary rules which prohibit the admission of such documents when they are used to prove liability. More ›
"11th Hour Change of Heart" Forms the Basis for FMLA Claim
As a result of the economic downturn, an employer sought to lay off various staff. A supervisor indicated that it would be “an obvious choice” to eliminate an employee in the communications department because the employee’s duties had changed significantly and the employer had stopped work on one of his core campaigns. After the employee was selected for layoff, a communications director notified the employer of his need for time off for knee replacement surgery. The employer then made a last-minute decision to lay off the communications director in lieu of the previously selected employee. The communications director sued, claiming that the employer had violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the record contained sufficient evidence to create triable issues where: (1) the employer had originally identified a co-worker for termination, but then selected the communications director shortly after he announced intention to take FMLA leave; (2) management backdated a memo to make it appear that the termination decision was not influenced by the leave request; and (3) the employer gave an inconsistent explanation regarding the termination. When an employer decides to terminate an employee not originally slated for layoff, it should make sure that the employment action is accurately and timely documented and that the employer’s thought process is consistent, precise and well-reasoned.
Shaffer v. American Medical Association, No. 10-2117 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2011)
Employee’s ADA Claim Fails due to Inability to Establish that she was a “Qualified Individual”
An employee sued her employer claiming that she was: (1) discriminated against based upon her disability, (2) retaliated against, and (3) subjected to a hostile work environment when the employer failed to provide her with a disabled-access parking spot. The employee suffered from fibromyalgia and other health problems, which ultimately led to her taking considerable time off of work. In at least one year, she was absent for 59 percent of the time. In response to her claim, the employer indicated that the employee’s attendance was entirely unpredictable and that she rarely gave advance notice of her absences. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that the employee’s claim failed from the inception because she was unable to establish that she was a qualified disabled individual, or, more specifically, that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job. The provision of a disabled parking space was not determinative, because it was questionable whether the space would have enabled her to perform the essential functions of her job. Because being present at her workplace was an essential function, and the employee’s history of absences demonstrated that she was incapable of regularly being at work, she could not overcome this initial hurdle. The court similarly determined that the employee was unable to establish a hostile work environment or retaliation based upon the same facts. Disability discrimination claims are on the rise. Employers must ensure that their policies and practices comply with the ADA and/or corresponding state anti-discrimination laws.
Colon-Fontanez v. San Juan, No. 10-1026 (1st Cir. Oct. 12, 2011)
Court Erred in Excluding “Me Too” Evidence Relating to Employee’s Claims of Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
The California Court of Appeals recently issued an important ruling about the use of "me too" evidence in discrimination and harassment cases. More ›
Worker Denied Ability to Maintain Discrimination Claim Based on Sexual Orientation
After working on the 2007 Country Music Awards production, a theater producer complained to his union that one of his co-workers harassed him based upon his homosexual orientation. Shortly thereafter, according to the employee, the union local stopped referring him for jobs. The employee sued, alleging violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, for gender discrimination and retaliation, and also alleged violation of the union’s duty of fair representation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the employee’s claims because neither federal nor the applicable state law prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Courts have uniformly held that the reference to “sex” in Title VII does not refer to sexual orientation. The employee had attempted to circumvent those decisions by arguing that he was discriminated against for failing to conform to sexual stereotypes, a claim which has been found to be viable under Title VII. The court rejected this argument, finding that the employee’s claim was simply one for discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is not prohibited under Tennessee or federal law. Employers—especially those that conduct business in numerous states—must be mindful of both state and federal anti-discrimination laws, which are often different in terms of what constitutes a protected characteristic. More than 20 states prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Read more about this case here.
Hostile and Boorish Bullying Does Not Support Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claim
A Caucasian employee severely injured when an African-American co-worker dropped a 940-pound steel coil on him sued his employer, arguing that his co-worker’s bullying behavior created a race-based hostile work environment under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that although the co-worker’s conduct was hostile and boorish, because the employee was not the target of racial slurs, epithets or overtly race-related behavior, the conduct was insufficient to create an abusive working environment. Furthermore, the court found it significant that the employee did not report his concerns to the proper official as required under the employer’s harassment policy. While the employer in this case escaped liability, employers should, in order to avoid lawsuits, be proactive and create positive work environments where employees are not subjected to abuse for any reason.
Title VII Caps Damage Awards per Plaintiff, not per Claim
A female employee sued her employer under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VII) after being fired, asserting three separate claims: (1) sex discrimination in setting of sales quotas, (2) retaliation for making complaints about discriminatory treatment on the basis of her sex, and (3) discriminatory termination. The jury found in favor of the employee on all three claims and awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages on each claim, $150,000 in back pay for both her retaliation and termination claims, and $2.4 million in punitive damages, for a total of $3.45 million in damages. The district court applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s prohibition on double recovery in back pay to her termination and retaliation claims and reduced the back pay award from $600,000 to $150,000. The district court then applied Title VII’s damages cap, which limited the amount for compensatory and punitive damages and reduced the employee’s award from $2.4 million to $200,000. On appeal the employee sought $200,000 in damages on each of her successful Title VII claims because they were “separate, distinct, and independent causes of action,” which could have been filed separately. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court’s reduction of the damages award based on the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which amended Title VII to allow jury trials and compensatory and punitive damages. The statutory language provides that a “complaining party” may recover compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII, and the amount awarded “shall not exceed, for each complaining party” a designated amount based upon the size of the employer. The compensatory and punitive damages cap on the employer here was $200,000. In light of this case, when assessing whether to settle or litigate discrimination complaints, employers need to be mindful that Title VII caps damages per plaintiff, not per claim. Additionally, employers need to be cognizant of the fact that its number of employees determines the amount of the Title VII damages cap.
Topics
- #12Days
- #MeToo
- 100% Healed Policy
- 12 Days of 2024
- 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act
- 24-Hour Shifts
- Abuse
- ACA
- Accommodation
- ADA
- ADAAA
- ADEA
- Administrative Exemption
- Administrative Warrant
- Adverse Employment Action
- Affirmative Action
- Affordable Care Act
- Age Discrimination
- Age-Based Harassment
- AHCA
- Aiding and Abetting
- AMD
- American Arbitration Association
- American Health Care Act
- American Rescue Plan
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Amusement Parks
- Anti-Discrimination Policy
- Anti-Harassment
- Anti-Harassment Policy
- Anti-Retaliation Rule
- Anxiety
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Agreement
- Arbitration Fees
- Arbitration Rule
- Arrest Record
- At-Will Employment
- Attorney Fees
- Attorney General Guidance
- Audit
- Automobile Sales Exemption
- Baby Boomers
- Back Pay
- Background Checks
- Ban the Box
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- Bargaining
- Bargaining Unit
- Baseball
- Benefits
- Bereavement
- Biden Administration
- Biometric Information
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- Black Lives Matter
- Blocking Charge Policy
- Blue Pencil Doctrine
- Board of Directors
- Borello Test
- Breastfeeding
- Browning-Ferris
- Burden of Proof
- Burden Shifting
- But-For Causation
- Cal/OSHA
- California
- California Administrative Procedure Act
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
- California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
- California Fair Employment and Housing Act
- California Family Rights Act
- California Labor Code
- California Legislature
- California Minimum Wage
- California Senate Bill 826
- California Supreme Court
- Call Centers
- CARES Act
- Case Updates
- Cat's Paw
- CCPA
- CDC
- Centers for Disease Control
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
- CFAA
- Chicago Minimum Wage
- Child Labor Laws
- Childbirth
- Choice of Law
- Church Plans
- Circuit Split
- City of Los Angeles CA Minimum Wage
- Civil Penalties
- Civil Rights
- Civil Rights Act
- Claim for Compensation
- Class Action
- Class Action Waiver
- Class Arbitration
- Class Certification
- Class Waiver
- CMS
- Code of Conduct
- Collective Action
- Collective Bargaining
- Collective Bargaining Agreements
- Collective Bargaining Freedom Act
- Committee on Special Education
- common law
- Commuting Time
- Comparable Work
- Compensable Time
- Compensation History
- Complaints
- Compliance
- Compliance Audit
- Computer Exemption
- Confidential Information
- Confidentiality
- Confidentiality Agreement
- Constructive Discharge
- Consular Report of Birth Abroad
- Contraception Services
- Contraceptive
- Contracts Clause
- Conviction Record
- Convincing Mosaic
- Cook County
- Cook County Minimum Wage
- Coronavirus
- Corporate Board
- Corporate Compliance
- COVID-19
- Criminal Conviction
- Criminal History
- CSE
- Customer Service
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- DACA
- Damages
- Deadline Extension
- Defamation
- Defendant Trade Secrets Act of 2016
- Delaware
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Economic Opportunity
- Department of Industrial Relations
- Department of Justice
- Department of Workforce Development
- Designation Notice
- DFEH
- DHHS
- Direct and Immediate
- Disability
- Disability and Medical Leave
- Disability Discrimination
- Disability-Based Harassment
- Disciplinary Decisions
- Disclosure
- Discrimination
- Disparaging
- Disparate Impact
- Disparate Treatment
- District of Columbia
- Diversity
- Diversity Policy
- Documentation
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- DOJ
- DOL
- Domestic Violence
- DOT
- Drug Free Workplace Act
- Drug Free Workplace Policies
- Drug Testing
- Dues
- Duluth
- DWD
- E-Verify
- EAP Exemption
- Earned Sick and Safe time
- Eavesdropping
- Education
- EEO Laws
- EEO-1
- Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
- El Cerrito CA Minimum Wage
- Election
- Electronic Communication Policy
- Electronic Communications
- Electronic Monitoring
- Electronic Reporting
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- emergency condition
- Emeryville CA Minimum Wage
- Emotional Distress
- Employee
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Classification
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Information
- Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
- Employee Termination
- Employer
- Employer Health Care Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employer Policies
- Employer Policy
- Employer Sponsored
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Employer-Sponsored Visas
- Employment
- Employment and Training Administration
- Employment Contract
- Employment Verification
- Enterprise Coverage
- EPA
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Equal Pay Act
- Equal Pay for Equal Work
- Equal Protection
- Equality
- ERISA
- Essential Employment Terms
- Essential Functions
- ESST
- Ethnic Equality
- Evidentiary Burdens
- Exclusive Remedy
- Executive Exemption
- Executive Order
- Exempt Employee
- Exempt Status
- Exemption
- Experience
- Expert
- Expression of Milk
- Extreme or Outrageous
- FAA
- Failure to Accomodate
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Fair Pay
- Fair Reading
- Fair Workweek Law
- Fair Workweek laws
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Family and Medical Leave
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- family planning
- Fast Food
- FCRA
- FDA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Drug Administration
- Federal Government
- Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation
- Federal Preemption
- Federal Register
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Trade Commission
- Fee Disputes
- FEHA
- fertility
- FFCRA
- Fiduciary
- Fiduciary Duty
- Fiduciary Rule
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Final Rule
- Fines
- fingerprints
- First Amendment
- First Circuit Court of Appeals
- Flexible Spending Accounts
- Florida
- Florida Civil Rights Act
- Florida's Private Whistleblower Act
- FLSA
- FLSA Exemptions
- Flu Shot
- Fluctuating Workweek
- FMCSA
- FMLA
- FMLA Abuse
- FMLA Interference
- Food Delivery
- Form 300A
- Forum-Selection Clause
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Franchisee
- Franchising
- Franchisor
- Fraud
- Freedom of Speech
- FSA
- FTC
- Full-time hours
- garden leave clause
- Gay Rights
- Gender Bias
- Gender Discrimination
- Gender Equality
- Gender Identity
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Gender Identity-Based Harassment
- Gender Nonconformity
- Generation Z
- Generational Conflict
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
- Georgia
- Gig Economy
- Gig Worker
- Good Faith
- Graduate Students
- Grievances
- Grocers
- Gross
- H-1B
- Hair Discrimination
- Handicap Discrimination
- Harassment
- Hawkins-Slater Medical Marijuana Act
- Health and Safety
- Health Care
- Health Care Employers
- Health Care Provider
- Health Insurance
- HHS
- Highly Compensated Employees
- HIPAA
- Hiring
- Hiring Policy
- Hiring Practices
- HIV
- Hostile Work Environment
- Hour Tracking
- Hours Worked
- HR
- Human Trafficking
- Hybrand
- I-9
- IDHR
- IEP
- IHRA
- Illinois
- Illinois Business Corporation Act
- Illinois Department of Human Rights
- Illinois Equal Pay Act
- Illinois Freedom to Work Act
- Illinois Human Rights Act
- Illinois Minimum Wage Law
- Illinois Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act
- Illinois One Day Off In Seven Act
- Illinois Supreme Court
- Illinois Workplace Transparency Act
- Immigration
- Impaired
- Impairment
- Incentives
- inclusion
- Income Tax
- independent contractor classification
- Independent Contractors
- Indiana
- Indiana Supreme Court
- Individualized Education Program
- informed consent
- Injuctive Relief
- Injunction
- Injuries
- Injury and Illness Reporting
- Interactive Process
- Interference
- Intermittent Leave
- Internal Applicants
- Internal Complaints
- Internal Revenue Service
- Interns
- Internships
- Investigation
- Iraq
- Iris Scans
- IRS
- IRS Notice 1036
- ISERRA
- IWTA
- janitorial
- Jefferson Standard
- Job Applicant
- Job Applicant Information
- Job Classification
- Job Classification Audit
- Job Descriptions
- Joint Control
- Joint Employer Relationship
- Joint Employer Rule
- Joint Employer Test
- Joint Employers
- Joint Employment
- Judicial Estoppel
- LAB s. 226.2
- Labor and Employment
- Labor Code
- Labor Dispute
- Labor Organizing
- Lactation Accommodations
- Lactation Policies
- Las Vegas
- lateral transfer
- Layoff
- Leased Employee
- Leave
- Ledbetter Act
- Legislation
- LGBTQ
- LGBTQ Rights
- LMRA
- Loan Forgiveness
- Local Ordinance
- Los Angeles County CA Minimum Wage
- Loss of Consortium
- M.G.L. Chapter 151B
- Major League Baseball
- major life activity
- Malibu CA Minimum Wage
- Mandatory
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Mandatory Reporting
- Manufacturers
- Marijuana
- Marital Discrimination
- Maryland Minimum Wage
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Equal Pay Act
- Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Massachusetts Wage Act
- Maternity Leave
- McDonnell Douglas
- Meal & Rest Break
- Meal Breaks
- Meal Period
- Media Mention
- Medical Condition
- Medical Examination
- Medical History
- Medical Marijuana
- MEPA
- MHRA
- Michigan
- Micro-Units
- Military
- Military Duty
- Millennials
- Milpitas CA Minimum Wage
- Minimum Wage
- Ministerial Exception
- Minneapolis Minimum Wage
- Minneapolis Sick and Safe Time ordinance
- Minnesota
- Minnesota Court of Appeals
- Minnesota Human Rights Act
- Minor Employees
- Minors
- Misappropriation
- Misclassification
- Missouri
- MLB
- Montana Human Rights Act
- Montgomery County Maryland Minimum Wage
- Municipalities
- Narrow Construction
- National Football League
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- National Origin Discrimination
- Natural Hair
- Nebraska
- Negligence
- Neutrality Agreement
- New Jersey
- New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act
- New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
- New Moms
- New York
- New York Average Weekly Wage
- New York City
- New York City Human Rights Law
- New York Court of Appeals
- New York HERO Act
- New York Labor Law
- New York Legislation
- New York Minimum Wage
- New York Paid Family Leave
- New York State Human Rights Law
- News
- NFL
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- NJ DOL
- NJ Paid Sick Leave Law
- NJLAD
- NLRA Section 7
- No Rehire Provisions
- Non-Compete
- Non-Employee Union Agents
- Non-Supervisory Employees
- Noncompete Covenant
- Noncompetition Agreement
- Nondiscretionary Bonuses
- nonproductive time
- Nonsolicitation Covenant
- Notice
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- Notices
- NPRM
- Nursing Mothers
- NY State Department of Taxation
- NYSHRL
- Obama Administration
- ObamaCare
- Obesity
- Objectively Offensive
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- OFCCP
- Off-Duty Rest
- Off-the-Clock
- Office of Management and Budget
- Ohio
- Ok Boomer
- Oklahoma
- Older Workers
- OMB
- On-Call Scheduling
- Only When Rule
- Opinion
- Opinion Letter
- Opioid Epidemic
- Opposition
- Oregon Minimum Wage
- Organ Donation
- OSH Act
- OSHA
- Other-than-Serious Violation
- Outside Applicants
- Outside Sales Exemption
- Overtime
- Paid Leave
- Paid Sick Leave
- Paid Sick Leave Law
- Paid Time Off
- Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
- Parental Leave
- part-time hours
- Partnership
- Pasadena CA Minimum Wage
- Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2009
- Pay Data
- Pay Equity
- Pay Gap
- Pay History
- Pay Inquiries
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Payment Disclosure
- Payroll
- Payroll Taxes
- PDA
- Penalties
- Pennsylvania
- Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
- Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
- Pension
- Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
- Pension Plans
- Pensions
- Perceived Disability
- Permanent Replacement Employees
- Personal Protective Equipment
- Personnel Record
- PFL
- Physiological Condition
- Picket
- Piece-rate
- Policies
- Policy
- Political Affiliation
- Political Discrimination
- Political Speech
- Politics
- Polygraph
- Portland Maine Minimum Wage
- Posting Requirements
- PPE
- Preemption
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Pregnant Worker Fairness Act
- Pregnant Worker Protections
- Premium Wage
- Prescriptions
- President Obama
- Presidential Election
- Pretext
- Preventative Care
- Privacy
- Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
- Private Colleges and Universities
- Private Employers
- Private Property
- Professional Exemption
- Property Rights
- Proposed Rulemaking
- Protected Activity
- Protected Class
- Protected Concerted Activity
- Protected Leave
- Protected Speech
- PTO
- PTSD
- Public Employers
- Public Records
- Publicly-Held Corporations
- PUMP Act
- Punitive Damages
- qualified individual
- Qualifying Exigency
- Quid Pro Quo
- quota
- Racial Discrimination
- Racial Equality
- Racial Harassment
- Reasonable Accomodation
- Rebuttable Presumption
- Recess Appointment
- Reduction in Force
- Regarded As
- Regulatory Compliance
- Regulatory Enforcement
- Rehabilitation Act
- Religion
- Religious Accommodation
- Religious Discrimination
- Religiously Affiliated Employers
- Remote Working
- Removal
- Reporting
- Reporting Time Pay
- Reproductive Health
- Republican
- Request for Information
- Respondeat Superior
- Rest Breaks
- Rest Period
- Restaurants
- Restrictions
- Restrictive Covenant
- Retail
- Retaliation
- retaliatory termination
- Retina Scans
- return-to-work
- Rhode Island
- RICO
- RIF
- Right of Recall
- Right to Control
- Right-to-Work
- Rounding Policy
- Safety Programs
- Safety Sensitive Laborer
- Salaried Employees
- salary
- Salary History
- Salary Inquiries
- Salary Inquiry
- Salary Test
- San Francisco CA Minimum Wage
- San Francisco Parity in Pay Ordinance
- San Leandro CA Minimum Wage
- Santa Monica CA Minimum Wage
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act
- SCOTUS
- Seasonal Workers
- SEC
- Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Secret Ballot
- Secretary of Labor
- Secretary Solis
- Section 7
- Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
- Section 8
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Securities Fraud
- Self Evaluations
- Separation Agreement
- Seperation
- Serious Health Condition
- Serious Violation
- Settlement Agreement
- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Severance
- Severe and Pervasive
- Sex Discrimination
- Sex Stereotyping
- Sex-Based Harassment
- sexual and reproductive health decisions
- Sexual Assault
- Sexual Harassment
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Sexual Orientation-Based Harassment
- Shameless
- Short-Term Disability
- Sick Leave
- Similarly Situated
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Social Media
- Social Media Policy
- Social Security
- South Dakota
- SOX
- Split Shift Pay
- SSA
- St. Paul Sick and Safe Time Ordinance
- St. Paul, Minnesota
- Stalking
- State Government
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Damages
- Statutory Exemption
- STD prevention
- Stock
- Stop WOKE Act
- Street Trade Permits
- strike
- Student Loans
- Students
- Subjectively Offensive
- Subpoena
- Substantial Relationship
- Successor Liability
- Supervisor Reassignment
- Supervisors
- Supervisory Employees
- Supplemental Wages
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Tax
- Tax Credits
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Tax Implications
- Tax Reform Act
- Teenage Labor
- Temporary Employee
- Temporary Help Agency
- Temporary Rule
- Temporary Schedule Change
- Temporary Workers
- Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Termination
- Texas
- Texas Workforce Commission (TWC)
- Texting
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- Time Clock
- Time Records
- Tipped workers
- Title IX
- Title VII
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Tort Liability
- Trade Secrets
- Training
- Trans
- Transgender Rights
- Transitioning
- Transportation Industry
- Travel Time
- Trial
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Undergraduate Students
- Underrepresented Community
- Undocumented Workers
- Undue Hardship
- Unemployment
- Unemployment Benefits
- Unemployment Insurance Program Letter
- Unfair Labor Practice
- Union Dues
- Union Organizing
- Union Relations Privilege
- Unions
- Unit Clarification Petition
- Unlawful Employment Practice
- Unpaid Leave
- Unpaid Wages
- USCIS
- USERRA
- vacation
- Vacation Accrual
- Vacation Pay
- Vacation Policy
- Vaccination
- Vaccine Requirement
- VEBA
- Verdict
- Vested Rights
- Veteran Services
- Vicarious Liability
- Victims
- Violent Crime
- Virginia
- Voluntary
- Volunteer Programs
- Volunteering
- Volunteers
- Wage and Hour
- Wage Order 7
- Wage Order 9
- Wage Theft
- Wage Transparency
- Wages
- Waiting Period
- Waiver
- warehouse
- WARN Act
- Webinar
- Wellness
- Wellness Program Incentives
- Wellness Programs
- Westchester County
- WFEA
- Whistleblower
- White House
- Whole Foods
- Willful and Repeat
- Wis. Stat. ch. 102
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Court of Appeals
- Wisconsin Fair Employment Act
- Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws
- Withdrawal Liability
- Withholdings
- Witness Statements
- Work Eligibility
- Work Permits
- Work Restriction
- Work Schedules
- Worker Classification
- Workers' Compensation
- Working Conditions
- Workplace Accommodation
- Workplace Bullying
- Workplace Discrimination
- Workplace Disputes
- Workplace Injury
- Workplace Injury Reporting
- workplace inspections
- Workplace Policies
- Workplace Rules
- Workplace Safety
- Workplace Training
- Wright Line
- written release procedures
- Wrongful Termination