Social Media + Employees = Hot Mess
#BigIdeas2020: NLRB’s Actions Impact Employers in 2020 - Employment Law This Week® - Trending News
You are about to enter another dimension. A journey into the world of discrimination and retaliation. Consider, if you will, the case of an employee who suspects that he or she is about to be fired or demoted for misconduct...more
“Third party” or “associational” retaliation is reprisal taken by an employer against someone other than the person who engaged in “protected conduct.” In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s anti-retaliation...more
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that an employee who blows the whistle under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) does not need to show that their employer had retaliatory intent to find...more
Tackling the tricky issue of how a plaintiff proves an employer's “intent,” in an opinion issued today, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, corporate whistleblowers have...more
In early December, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order denying leave to appeal in McNeill-Marks v. MyMichigan Medical Center Alma,* a case involving fundamental questions regarding the meaning and application of...more
I have often said to clients that retaliation claims in California are the easiest claims to allege and the hardest claims to defend. Regardless of the statute, a retaliation claim is essentially three things:...more
Two important principles under the National Labor Relations Act are worth reiterating to construction employers: first, employees cannot be disciplined for engaging in activity protected by that Act; and, second, employers...more
In Johnson v. Global Language Center, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of an employer in a Title VII retaliation claim, where the “protected activity”...more
Whistleblower claims of all types generally require proof of three elements; a complaint of conduct believed to be unlawful (protected activity), some form of discipline (an adverse action), and proof that the adverse action...more
Morals based on a real court decision. My law partner Jon Yarbrough alerted me to a recent court decision that is full of little gems for employers. I thought I'd break the decision down into "true fables," each with a...more
Even if the employee doesn't qualify. Picture this. You ask your boss whether you can take leave under the FMLA. Your boss asks why you want the leave, and you say your cat is sick.* It's your favorite cat. Your boss...more
A recent Seventh Circuit decision interpreting Illinois law affirmed the district court’s ruling that an employee’s refusal to engage in activity illegal in New York, but not in Illinois, was neither protected under the...more
A recent case out of the Sixth Circuit, Mangold v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. reminds employers of the importance of keeping an employee’s participation in protected activity on a need-to-know basis as a preventative...more
Texas courts generally look to federal courts’ interpretation of federal anti-discrimination laws to assist in interpreting the anti-discrimination provisions of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). However, the...more
The importance of a thorough, independent investigation prior to taking adverse employment action was reaffirmed this week by the Fifth Circuit in Brown v. Walmart. Brown sued her employer, Walmart, for retaliation when she...more
On April 2, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied a defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment on a SOX whistleblower retaliation claim, finding genuine issues of material fact...more
On October 2, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania federal court denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a SOX whistleblower retaliation claim, reasoning that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged...more
On February 12, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi recently denied a motion for summary judgment in a SOX whistleblower claim where the defendant company alleged that it terminated...more
A recent decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the distinction between firing an employee for personal or politically expedient reasons (which may be entirely legal) and firing an employee because of his...more
Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) ruled that an employee who was fired after warning a co-worker his job was at risk had engaged in inherently protected activity and must be reinstated. The case,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: An employee who expresses opposition to an employer’s policies and practices that affect members of the general public is not engaging in an activity that FEHA protects, because the activity is not opposing...more
In Westawski v. Merck & Co., No. 14-cv-3239 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2016), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant Merck & Co. (Company) summary judgment on Plaintiff Joni Westawski’s (Plaintiff) SOX whistleblower...more
Executive Summary: Just when employers thought New Jersey's Supreme Court could not expand the state's whistleblower law further (as we reported last summer), the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) once again has...more
Question: One of our male supervisors wants to fire a female employee who complained that he was sexually harassing her. The harassment allegations appear to have some substance: he asked her for pictures of herself in a...more
On May 20, 2016, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the ARB, finding that a former employee of Deltek, Inc. (Company) was retaliated against in violation of Section 806 of SOX and entitled to four years’ worth of...more