EEOC’s Updated Retaliation Enforcement Guidance Seeks to Expand the Reach of its Anti-Retaliation Laws

Effectively responding to employee discrimination complaints by current employees without running afoul of federal and state anti-retaliation laws presents a slippery slope for all employers. In fact, retaliation complaints make up nearly half of all discrimination charges filed with the EEOC today. Thus, it is critical that employers, their managers, supervisors, and employees understand who the laws protect and what constitutes retaliation.

On Thursday the EEOC sought to clarify these standards by issuing updated proposed enforcement guidance. The proposal is the first update to the EEOC’s Compliance Manual since 1998. The proposal was prompted by significant developments in the law and the marked increase of retaliation claims over the last eighteen years.

The 76-page proposal covers the definition of retaliation, the elements of a retaliation claim, interference claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, remedies, and best practices.  Rather than summarize all of the above, I will highlight the most significant developments below. More ›

Seventh Circuit Reiterates Standard for Establishing Substantial Limitation on the Ability to Work

It goes without saying that an employee cannot prevail on a disability discrimination claim unless he is actually disabled. In the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), this means that he must show that a disability “substantially limits” one or more of his “major life activities.”  Predictably, plaintiffs often allege that the “major life activity” that their disability has impacted is the activity of “working." Thus, an important question for employers is this: when does a disability actually limit an employee’s ability to work? More ›

EEOC Clarifies when Employers may Offer Incentives to Employee's Spouses to Provide Genetic Information

Earlier this year, this blog brought you a look at proposed rules by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that provided some guidance on how to administer a voluntary employee wellness program without running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Yet, one question remained open for years and was not clarified by those proposed rules — how the EEOC would handle employers offering incentives allowing them to collect certain genetic information of employees' spouses in connection with employer wellness programs. Recently proposed rules seek to clarify that issue. More ›

The EEOC's Battlecry: Cracking down hard on Religious Discrimination

On the heels of the biggest religious discrimination case in years, and in line with the EEOC's "hottest litigation trend" (according to David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC, pictured right), the EEOC continued its charge against religious discrimination in the workplace in EEOC v. Star Transport Co., Inc.. Last week, a Northern District of Illinois jury awarded two Muslim truck drivers $240,000 finding Start Transport fired them for refusing to transport alcohol despite their religious beliefs. More ›

Employee Allowed to Pursue Claim Despite Failure to Follow Rules

One of the first things a savvy employer or employer's attorney may do upon receipt of a claim, charge, or complaint, is look for deficiencies which may serve as a bar to suit.  More ›

Legitimate Business Reasons Support Termination, Despite Employee's Recent Complaints of Discrimination

Employers often feel forced to walk on eggshells around employees who have made informal or formal complaints of discrimination, and often go so far as excusing otherwise inappropriate conduct for fear of a retaliation claim if any adverse action is taken. A recent case out of the Ninth Circuit provides some hope for employers in this regard. More ›

Fourth Circuit Applies Sovereign Immunity to Shield State Hospital Supervisors from Suit

Some employers are immune from liability by virtue of their status as a state-run operation. Employees have become more creative in attempting to obtain recovery from their employers in such situations by naming individual employees as defendants. In this case, however, that strategy failed to prove successful for the employee-plaintiff. More ›

Employee Witness Entitled to Same Protections against Retaliation as Complaining Employee

In this case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that not only is an employee who complains about inappropriate conduct in the workplace protected from retaliation, but the same protections extend to those employees who participate in an investigation into the alleged conduct. More ›

Employers Eyeing First GINA Cases for Further Guidance

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants based on genetic information. Title II of GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decision, restricts employers and other entities from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information. Over the course of the past few years, the EEOC has filed two cases against employers, alleging violation of this particular Act.  More ›

Massachusetts’ Anti-Discrimination Laws Prohibit Associational Discrimination

In a recent employment discrimination decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Massachusetts discrimination statute, M. G. L. c. 151B, encompasses a claim for "associational discrimination."

"The term 'associational discrimination' refers to a claim that a plaintiff, although not a member of a protected class himself or herself, is the victim of discriminatory animus directed toward a third person who is a member of the protected class and with whom the plaintiff associates."  More ›