The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has spoken, and employers that once relied exclusively on McDonnell Douglas might need to rethink their litigation strategy in employment-discrimination cases.

In London District Catholic School Board v.

Alyesha Asghar said the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, which will make it easier for employees to pursue discrimination claims over job transfers, does not mean an end to IE&D.

The Washington Post

View (Subscription required.)

In Ruiz Mattei v. Commercial Equipment Finance, Inc.,¹ the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico determined that claims under the Unjustified Dismissal Act² and the Workplace Discrimination Act³ are transferable to the employee’s heirs following the employee’s death.

Last week, Governor JB Pritzker signed into law several bills that significantly amend the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). As a result of these amendments, Illinois employers should expect an uptick in discrimination cases proceeding through state courts and agencies.

Longer Statute of Limitations Period

Lawsuits against employers offering retirement benefit plans have been on the rise.  Recent suits, discussed in this update, have provided some guidance for employers. 

A recent federal appeals court case clarifies that, under ERISA, the regulations governing disability plans’ claims review procedures apply to claims that predate the 2018 changes to the regulations. The decision also serves as a reminder for plan administrators to review their claims review procedures to ensure compliance with the current requirements for a “full and fair review” benefits appeal process.

The Claims Review Regulations

Helene Wasserman shares her view on how mentorships can positively impact career paths.

The National Law Review

View Article (Subscription required.) 

An effective way to increase diversity hiring is to require diverse candidate slates for interviewing. Such slates include at least two diverse or women candidates in the pool of finalists. Employers should take heed, however, because there are limits to which a recruiter or a staffing agency can go in building such a slate. Alyesha Dotson discusses the avenues to intentionally recruit for diversity in a fair and smart manner to avoid violating antidiscrimination laws.
  

A recent District of Columbia federal court ruling reminds employers that a severance agreement containing a release of claims under the False Claims Act does not guarantee dismissal of a suit on those grounds.

Background on the FCA

Ben Sandahl discusses a Minnesota case that raises several issues for companies working with independent contractors.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required)

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently adopted the U.S. Supreme Court's relatively narrow definition of “supervisor” for use in determining when employers are liable under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) for creating or failing to remedy a hostile work environment. The decision provides employers with clarity as the term is not defined by the CFEPA.

As Washington, D.C., prepares to join a growing group of state and local jurisdictions requiring pay transparency in job postings and recruiting practices, Joy Rosenquist comments on how the D.C. law is different. 

WorldatWork

View

Jeanine Conley Daves and Alexa Laborda Nelson explain how employers can take steps to ensure they are in compliance with the recent COVID-19 relief plans and avoid potential whistleblower litigation.

Chief Executive

View Article (Subscription required.) 

Michael Royal and Alyssa Peterson discuss two new laws that will bring changes for employers in Texas by expanding protections for employees who assert claims of sexual harassment under the Texas Labor Code.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

On June 1, 2023, in United States ex rel.

A corporate whistleblower can create more financial, organizational, and reputational damage to an employer by using the federal False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729-33, than by using any other “whistleblower” law. While the FCA contains no requirement that the whistleblower be an employee to create the damage, most FCA whistleblowers are employees, and almost all of them bring the problem to their management or human resources department before they suffer an adverse employment action. Management often does not hear the whistle blowing when the damage is still avoidable.

The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of their arrest and conviction records.¹  Generally, an employer cannot make decisions on the basis of an arrest or conviction record unless the crimes “substantially relate” to the circumstances of the job at issue.²  For many years, the state agencies responsible for enforcing this law—the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC)—have taken the view that crimes of domestic violen

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a federal law that governs employment-related background checks.  Most lawsuits asserting federal claims proceed in federal court.¹  The FCRA is atypical in that FCRA claims can proceed in either federal or state court.  A new opinion from a California court of appeal in Hebert v.

Over the years, attempts to arbitrate breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 502(a)(2) have had varying results.¹  One court recently recognized that “whether any benefits plan may agree to submit to arbitration and/or whether an individual employment agreement may compel claims on behalf of a benefits plan to proceed to arbitration are not issues of clearly settled law.”²  This issue is before two circuit courts of appeal this year.  So far, the court rulings in the cases seem to provide some guidance while a

Pamela Reynolds’ article discusses whether employers can enforce arbitration of breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 502(a)(2).

Benefits Pro

View (Subscription required.)

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana will dramatically impact employers’ rights to enforce arbitration agreements related to claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).¹  This decision, which is a significant win for employers with interests in California, will allow employers to compel arbitration of a PAGA plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario recently held a preliminary hearing to determine whether allegations made under the Human Rights Code (Code) fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator, or whether the Tribunal had concurrent jurisdiction over employment-related human rights matters in a unionized workplace.