A new manager walks in, looks at a long-standing accommodation, and decides it’s over. The employee had been doing the job successfully for years. That’s where the risk starts.
Most paid sick leave laws protect employees who follow the rules. A D.C. federal court just illustrated what happens when one doesn’t, and why a written call-out policy is the difference between a defensible termination and extended litigation.
One racial slur. One termination. Zero liability. The Third Circuit’s newest hostile work environment decision is a masterclass in what prompt employer action actually looks like.
President Trump’s new executive order for federal contractors bans something called “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” Read the definition and you’ll find it’s just discrimination — conduct Title VII has prohibited for sixty years. What the order actually adds is a new enforcement mechanism, and that’s what federal contractors need to understand. Continue reading
I am an employment lawyer. I have spent over two decades helping employers avoid liability. Last week, I got a cease and desist letter. Against me.
TL;DR: I received a cease and desist letter demanding that I immediately stop using the name “The Employer Handbook.” After careful legal review, I am complying. The blog needs a new name, and I need your help picking one.
📄 Visit The Employer Handbook while the name still applies
The Third Circuit just predicted that New Jersey’s “reverse discrimination” rule is incompatible with the NJLAD. Federal courts in New Jersey are no longer applying it.
Put simply, a performance improvement plan is designed to improve performance, not expose employers to liability. Courts used to see it that way too. That changed when the Supreme Court redefined what counts as an adverse employment action — and suddenly PIPs were in play.
TL;DR: An IT employee placed on a three-month performance improvement plan that she successfully completed did not suffer an adverse employment action under the ADEA. The First Circuit, applying the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, held that a PIP constitutes an adverse action only if it actually changes the terms or conditions of employment — and this one didn’t. The court also rejected the employee’s constructive discharge claim, finding that quitting ten months after finishing the PIP, with no one telling her to leave and no evidence of intolerable conditions, did not amount to a forced resignation.
She signed a severance release, collected her benefits, and then sued anyway. The Sixth Circuit just explained why that didn’t work – and why the employer’s paperwork made all the difference.
According to the EEOC, a company told its staffing agencies not to send women for laborer jobs because women would “distract” male workers. When the EEOC sued, the company turned around and sued the staffing agencies too. A federal court just explained why that doesn’t work.
He worked as a building superintendent for three and a half years. His employer conceded he did the work. He was never paid wages after his first two weeks. The New Jersey Supreme Court just explained why that arrangement is going to cost the employer. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog