Sarah Goodman

Labor and Employment

New DOJ Memo Addresses Legality of DEI Programs for Federal Funding Recipients

On July 30, 2025, the Department of Justice released a memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi offering guidance to federal agencies and recipients of federal funding regarding practices that the administration views as potentially unlawful under federal antidiscrimination laws. While the memo focuses heavily on institutions of higher education, its implications extend to all federal funding recipients, federal contractors, and employers subject to Title VII. The memo outlines the administration’s interpretation of federal law as it applies to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and similar programs. It provides examples of practices the DOJ considers unlawful or legally questionable, as well as "best practices" intended to help organizations avoid liability. Key Takeaways Applicability Beyond Higher Education: Although many examples concern colleges and universities, the guidance expressly encourages all entities subject to federal antidiscrimination laws, including public and private employers, state and local governments, and contractors, to review and evaluate their DEI programs. DOJ’s Interpretations Are Not Binding Law: The memo reflects the DOJ’s interpretation of existing law, not a change in the law itself. Courts remain the final arbiters of what federal statutes mean, and state laws may impose different or additional requirements, especially in areas such as transgender rights, where the administration’s views may conflict with both state law and judicial precedent. Examples of Practices the DOJ Views as Unlawful or Problematic Race-Based Scholarships or Opportunities: Programs that limit access to scholarships, internships, or leadership initiatives based on race (e.g., a “Black Excellence Scholarship”) violate federal law unless they meet the very high bar for race-conscious programs. Race-Exclusive Facilities or Resources: DEI initiatives that designate certain physical spaces (e.g., “BIPOC-only lounges”) or create identity-based access restrictions may amount to unlawful segregation or exclusion, even if intended to foster inclusion. Segregated Training or Affinity Groups: Programs that separate participants based on race (e.g., mandatory DEI sessions with race-exclusive breakouts) risk violating civil rights laws. Voluntary, open-to-all professional support networks may be permissible. Diverse Slate Hiring Requirements: Mandating racial or demographic composition in interview pools (e.g., requiring a minimum number of minority candidates per hiring slate) may violate the law if used to exclude otherwise qualified individuals based on race. Race- or Sex-Based Contracting Preferences: Automatically favoring minority- or women-owned businesses in procurement decisions, without narrowly tailoring those preferences to a compelling government interest, raises legal concerns. Note: The DOJ flags this area as particularly sensitive given that many entities, including government contractors, are required to establish utilization goals for disadvantaged businesses. The legality of these long-standing programs may now be in flux. Proxies for Race or Sex Consideration: Cultural Competence or “Lived Experience” Requirements: When tied to race or ethnicity, such criteria may unlawfully advantage candidates based on protected characteristics Diversity Statements or “Obstacle” Essays: Requiring narratives that implicitly reward racial or gender identity may function as indirect proxies for discrimination The memo sharply narrows the permissible interpretation of the Supreme Court’s language in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, particularly Chief Justice Roberts’ explicit statement that applicants may discuss how race shaped their experiences, provided race itself is not the basis for decisions. Recommended “Best Practices” To reduce legal risk, the DOJ encourages organizations to: Eliminate Demographic-Driven Goals: Avoid designing policies or using facially neutral criteria (e.g., “first-generation student” or “underserved zip code”) to achieve demographic outcomes tied to protected characteristics Justify Criteria with Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Rationales: Document how selection criteria are related to objective performance or institutional needs — not race, sex, or other protected traits Evaluate Potential Proxy Effects: Before implementing race-neutral policies, assess whether they function in practice as proxies for race, sex, or other protected statuses Abandon Diversity Quotas: Avoid policies that require representation of specific demographic groups in candidate pools, committees, or final hiring selections Include and Enforce Nondiscrimination Clauses in Contracts: Require third parties receiving federal funds to comply with nondiscrimination obligations. Monitor compliance and terminate funding where violations occur. Note on Scope of Coverage The DOJ memo applies to recipients of federal financial assistance, which includes grants, loans, subsidies, and insurance, not federal procurement contracts. However, many principles may be relevant to federal contractors, particularly where compliance with Title VII or similar statutes is at issue.

August 8, 2025

Labor and Employment

Sustaining LGBTQ+ Inclusivity: Legal and Workplace Strategies After Pride Month 2025

Pride Month 2025, commemorating the 1969 Stonewall Riots, celebrates the LGBTQ+ community’s contributions, but inclusivity must extend beyond June to foster workplaces where everyone feels valued. Navigating the complex legal landscape — shaped by the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision, Executive Order (EO) 14173, and the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Fraud Initiative — requires strategic planning. Cultural dynamics, including employee activism and consumer expectations, further emphasize the need for year-round inclusivity. This blog provides actionable legal and practical strategies to ensure compliance with Title VII, mitigate False Claims Act (FCA) risks, and create psychologically safe workplaces where LGBTQ+ employees can thrive without hiding their identities. Understanding the Legal Framework The Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County (140 S. Ct. 1731, 2020) decision established that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for employers with 15 or more employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title VII, providing guidance on restroom access aligned with gender identity, harassment prevention, and protections against discrimination based on nonconformity to sex-based stereotypes (EEOC Guidance, 2021). However, a May 15, 2025, federal court ruling vacated parts of the EEOC’s harassment guidance, pending appeal. The Eleventh Circuit’s Lange v. Houston County decision underscored the importance of inclusive benefits, holding employers liable for excluding gender-affirming care from health plans. State and local anti-discrimination laws in 25 states, the District of Columbia, and many municipalities, may impose stricter standards or apply to smaller employers. Globally, over 60 countries criminalize same-sex relationships, creating risks for employees on international assignments. EO 14173, signed January 21, 2025, requires federal fund recipients to certify DEI program compliance with anti-discrimination laws, with violations risking FCA liability. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, launched May 19, 2025, targets false certifications in DEI programs, such as gender-identity-based restroom policies, using FCA’s treble damages and qui tam provisions. Addressing Workplace Challenges Post-Pride Month Beyond Pride Month, employers must address ongoing challenges to sustain inclusivity. Many LGBTQ+ employees feel pressured to “cover” (hiding aspects of their identity), such as avoiding mention of same-sex partners or gender identity to fit in, which can harm mental wellbeing and productivity. Despite Bostock, harassment over pronouns, dress codes, or benefits persists, risking Title VII claims. Employee activism, often heightened during Pride, may continue as resource groups push for robust inclusion policies. Missteps could lead to union organizing, lawsuits alleging discrimination, or consumer backlash from perceived over or under-support of LGBTQ+ issues. The DOJ’s focus on “unlawful DEI” may prompt some to scale back inclusivity efforts, while religious accommodation requests require careful balancing with Title VII obligations. FCA Defenses: Safeguarding Against DOJ Enforcement The DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative frames false DEI compliance certifications as FCA violations, but employers can leverage robust defenses. In United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. (143 S. Ct. 1391, 2023), the Supreme Court held that FCA liability requires subjective knowledge of noncompliance. Employers who reasonably believed their DEI programs complied with Title VI, Title IX, or Section 1557 — based on legal counsel or ambiguous regulations — can argue they lacked the “scienter” needed for liability. Documenting good-faith compliance efforts strengthens this defense. In Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar (136 S. Ct. 1989, 2016), the Court required that false certifications materially influence federal payment decisions. If the government knew of DEI practices through audits or continued funding despite disclosures, employers can argue immateriality. The Eleventh Circuit’s Honeyfund.com v. Florida (2023) decision, which invalidated anti-DEI restrictions as First Amendment violations, supports arguments that inclusivity initiatives, like employee resource groups or training, are protected speech. These defenses — good-faith compliance, lack of materiality, and free speech — help mitigate FCA risks when supported by legal counsel. Practical Strategies for Year-Round Inclusivity To sustain inclusivity post-Pride Month while complying with Title VII and mitigating FCA risks, employers can adopt the following strategies to create workplaces where employees feel safe and valued: Update Policies for Clarity and Compliance Revise anti-discrimination policies to explicitly cover sexual orientation and gender identity, aligning with EEOC guidance, state/local laws, and Title VI/IX/Section 1557. Ensure DEI programs avoid assigning benefits by protected characteristics. Support restroom and dress code access aligned with gender identity, offering gender-neutral facilities as a compliance option. Accurately reflect these practices in federal certifications to avoid FCA liability.   Offer Voluntary, Inclusive Training Provide voluntary training on preferred pronouns, names, and Title VII compliance to reduce discrimination risks and foster inclusion. Training should be non-segregatory to avoid DOJ scrutiny. Equip HR with de-escalation training to handle identity-based conflicts, creating a psychologically safe environment where employees can be authentic, without fear of judgment.    Implement Confidential Reporting Channels Establish confidential reporting mechanisms and thorough investigation processes to address discrimination promptly, preventing workplace hostility and Title VII claims. Swift responses to inappropriate comments, such as those about restroom access, demonstrate a commitment to inclusivity. Support Gender-Affirming Benefits and Accommodations Ensure health plans cover gender-affirming care, compliant with Lange and the Respect for Marriage Act (Pub. L. 117-228). Develop accommodation plans for transitioning employees, ensuring accurate federal certifications. For international assignments, assess destination laws and provide safety protocols for LGBTQ+ employees.   Conduct Privileged DEI Reviews Perform privileged reviews of DEI programs and certifications under Title VI/IX/Section 1557, focusing on policies like restroom access that may attract DOJ scrutiny. Document compliance efforts to support Schutte defenses and track payment decisions for Escobar arguments.       Foster Inclusive Cultural Observances Extend Pride Month’s spirit by integrating inclusivity into year-round observances, such as decorating contests with rainbow themes or inclusive swag like pens, to foster belonging. Apply consistent, objective criteria to cultural observances (e.g., Pride Month, Black History Month) aligned with company values to avoid FCA risks. Ensure events are voluntary and inclusive, with legal review for sponsorships or displays to address FCA and First Amendment implications.   Balance Religious Accommodations Process religious accommodation requests for inclusivity initiatives compliantly, balancing with Title VII duties. Manage conflicts without compromising anti-discrimination policies to maintain a safe workplace for all.  Encourage Mentorship and Allyship Promote mentorship programs to support LGBTQ+ employees, fostering career growth and a sense of belonging. Encourage allyship year-round by creating spaces where employees can be open about their identities, reducing the need to cover, and enhance wellbeing.  Align Legal, HR, DEI, and PR Teams Coordinate across teams to ensure inclusivity initiatives reflect brand values and risk tolerance. Prepare communication strategies to address employee and consumer sentiment, leveraging Honeyfund arguments for expressive activities. Maintain records of compliance efforts to counter potential FCA claims. Sustaining Inclusivity Beyond Pride Month 2025 Hiding one’s identity to fit in can erode mental wellbeing and limit professional growth. With over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills pending and heightened DOJ scrutiny, employers must remain vigilant. By aligning with Title VII, leveraging FCA defenses (Schutte, Escobar, Honeyfund), and fostering psychologically safe environments, employers can create workplaces where authenticity thrives. Legal counsel is essential to navigate Title VII, FCA, and First Amendment complexities, ensuring sustained inclusivity for LGBTQ+ employees year-round.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

July 31, 2025

Labor and Employment

H.R.1 Ends Taxes on Tips & Overtime: Employer Guide

On July 4, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed H.R.1—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—into law following its narrow passage in the House of Representatives just days earlier. Touted as the Trump administration’s marquee legislative victory ahead of the 2026 midterms, the Act makes headlines for many reasons. But for employers, two provisions demand immediate attention: A new above-the-line tax deduction for qualified tip income, and A new above-the-line tax deduction for qualified overtime compensation. Both provisions are now law and will take effect starting with the 2025 tax year, bringing new complexities to wage practices, payroll reporting, and compensation strategy. Below is a summary of the legal and practical considerations employers need to know. "No Tax on Tips:" Tax Deduction for Employees Receiving Qualified Tip Income Section 70201 of the Act allows certain employees to deduct up to $25,000 annually in qualifying tip income. The deduction is aimed at hospitality and service industry workers, but its implementation raises numerous legal and compliance considerations for employers. Key Requirements Eligibility Cap: Deduction phases out beginning at $150,000 in modified AGI ($300,000 for joint returns). Qualified tips must:be voluntarily paid by the customer (not mandatory service charges or auto-gratuities), be paid in cash, by card, or through valid tip-sharing arrangements, and be received in a qualifying occupation that customarily and regularly receives tips as of December 31, 2024.The Treasury must publish a definitive list of qualifying occupations within 90 days. Excluded Occupations: Employees in law, accounting, finance, consulting, performing arts, and similar professions are categorically excluded from eligibility. Reporting Requirements Employers must report:Total cash tips received by the employee on Form W-2. The employee’s qualifying occupation (2025 approximations allowed, subject to Treasury guidance). Employer Risks and Considerations Mischaracterization of wages as tips to secure a tax advantage may trigger IRS enforcement or wage-hour liability. Employers may consider changes to tip pooling or customer-facing tipping practices, but must:remain compliant with FLSA tip pool rules, including exclusion of managers and supervisors, avoid coercing tipping in non-traditional settings where it was not previously customary, ensure 100% tip reporting is enforced among employees. Until the Treasury issues regulations and the occupation list, employers should avoid restructuring wages to exploit this provision. "No Tax on Overtime:" Deduction for Federally Mandated Overtime Compensation Section 70202 of the Act allows employees to deduct up to $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers) in FLSA-required overtime compensation. This deduction is limited in scope but may prompt employers to rethink how overtime is classified and compensated. Qualified Overtime Compensation Applies only to overtime required under Section 7 of the FLSA (i.e., 1.5x pay for hours over 40 per week). Does not apply to:Overtime required only by state law (e.g., California’s daily overtime rules). Overtime paid voluntarily under employer policy or collective bargaining agreements. Payments already claimed as qualified tips. Reporting Requirements Employers must separately report qualified overtime compensation on Form W-2.For 2025, approximations are permitted under a reasonable method (to be defined by the Treasury). Compliance Risks With this new deduction, employers may be tempted to reengineer pay practices. However, doing so carries significant legal exposure: Example 1: Reclassifying salaried exempt employees as nonexempt hourly employees, lowering base pay, and inflating overtime hours to maintain prior salary levels = FLSA violation if hours are not actually worked and accurately tracked. Example 2: Reducing regular hourly rates for nonexempt employees while creating artificial overtime (e.g., setting an internal 30-hour threshold or applying double-time bonuses) = disallowed, as only FLSA-mandated overtime premiums qualify for the deduction. The Treasury is authorized to issue regulations preventing abuse and wage reclassification. Employers who attempt to engineer “deductible overtime” without strict compliance will face regulatory scrutiny. Practical Employer Guidance The “no tax on tips” and “no tax on overtime” provisions will likely be popular with employees and heavily publicized during the 2025 W-2 season. But for employers, the changes bring regulatory complexity, legal risk, and potential downstream litigation. What Employers Should Do Now Do not alter compensation structures prematurely.Wait for Treasury regulations, especially the occupational list for tip eligibility. Ensure accurate wage and hour records.All overtime-eligible employees must have their hours and regular rates carefully documented. Audit tip pool arrangements and ensure FLSA compliance.Exclude ineligible participants, properly allocate tips, and enforce reporting discipline. Prepare to update payroll systems.New W-2 fields for tip and overtime breakdowns will require reconfiguration. Long-Term Strategy Employers considering reclassification of exempt employees, modification of pay rates, or introduction of creative incentive structures should engage qualified employment counsel. Wage-hour compliance and federal tax strategy must be aligned to avoid triggering enforcement by the IRS, DOL, or plaintiffs’ attorneys. Final Thoughts The tax benefits of H.R.1 may create new incentives for employees, but they also present a compliance minefield for employers. The risk of misclassification, improper reporting, or wage-hour violations is high, especially as employers rush to leverage perceived tax advantages. Employers seeking to responsibly explore compensation adjustments in light of the “no tax on tips” and “no tax on overtime” deductions should consult with legal counsel familiar with FLSA compliance, payroll tax reporting, and employee classification issues. Our labor and employment team is actively advising clients on how to navigate H.R.1's implementation. Contact us to schedule a strategy session or compliance audit.

July 10, 2025

Labor and Employment

SCOTUS Levels Title VII Standards in Reverse Discrimination Case

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that so-called “reverse discrimination” claims—discrimination claims brought by members of a “majority” race, gender, or other protected characteristic—are not subject to heightened standards of proof. The June 5, 2025, decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services clarifies the legal standards for such claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, serving as a critical reminder for employers to ensure fairness in employment decisions as reverse-discrimination claims become more prevalent. Issue The core question before the court was whether majority-group plaintiffs must show additional “background circumstances” to support the claim that the employer discriminates against the majority, in addition to meeting the standard elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII. In discrimination law, a majority group refers to a group that is perceived as having numerical or social dominance in a specific context. For example, 78% of software engineers are men, making males the majority group in this case. The Ames ruling clarifies that members of majority groups—such as heterosexuals in Ames’s case—do not face a higher burden when alleging workplace discrimination, ensuring equal protection under Title VII for all individuals. Background Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, under a new supervisor (a homosexual woman,) Ames received positive performance reviews but was passed over for a promotion to the Bureau Chief of Quality in favor of another homosexual woman. Four days later, Ames was demoted to a secretarial role, and a gay man was hired to fill her previous position. Ames filed a lawsuit against her employer, alleging discrimination based on her sex and sexual orientation under Title VII. The U.S. District Court for the District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Sixth Circuit held that, as a heterosexual plaintiff, Ames was required to show “background circumstances” to support the suspicion that the employer was an unusual one that discriminated against the majority, including evidence that a member of the minority group made the employment decision or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against the majority. Ames failed to meet this requirement, as her termination was decided by heterosexual directors, and she provided no evidence of a broader pattern of discrimination. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, four circuit courts (Eighth, Seventh, D.C., and Tenth) had adopted the “background circumstances” requirement for majority-group plaintiffs, while two circuits (Third and Eleventh) had rejected it. Court’s Holding In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court held that majority-group plaintiffs bringing “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII are not required to show “background circumstances” to prove discrimination. The court found that this requirement is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and Supreme Court precedent. The court emphasized that Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision does not distinguish between majority and minority-group plaintiffs, focusing instead on “individuals” rather than groups. The statute’s language, which establishes protections for every individual regardless of group membership, leaves no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs. The court further clarified that all Title VII discrimination claims should be evaluated under the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973,) without additional hurdles for majority-group plaintiffs. The “background circumstances” rule, the court noted, disregards the flexibility of the McDonnell Douglas framework, which was never intended to be “rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic” (Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 2002). By imposing a uniform, highly specific evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs, the rule violated this principle. The court rejected the Ohio Department of Youth Services’ argument that the “background circumstances” requirement was merely a way to assess whether an employment decision suggested discrimination based on a protected characteristic. The Sixth Circuit’s application of the rule explicitly relied on Ames’s failure to meet a heightened evidentiary standard, which Title VII does not support. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for application of the proper prima facie standard. Concurrence Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concurred fully with the majority but wrote separately to highlight the problems with judicially created “atexual legal rules” like the “background circumstances” requirement. Justice Thomas pointed out the difficulty of defining the “majority” in contexts like gender (where women are a majority nationally but not in certain industries) or race (where categories are often imprecise). He also questioned the McDonnell Douglas framework’s utility, signaling openness to reconsidering it in future cases. Notably, Justice Thomas referenced diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in a footnote, suggesting that such programs may lead to discrimination against perceived majority groups, a point likely to be cited in future challenges to DEI policies. Why This Matters This ruling ensures that all workers, regardless of their race, gender, or other protected characteristic, are subject to the same legal standards when bringing discrimination claims under Title VII. By eliminating the “background circumstances” requirement, the court has removed an unfair hurdle for majority-group plaintiffs, likely leading to an increase in reverse-discrimination claims. The decision aligns with recent Supreme Court rulings emphasizing equal treatment, such as those on affirmative action and job transfers. Takeaways for Employers Increased Scrutiny of Employment Decisions: With barriers lowered for majority-group plaintiffs, employers should expect a rise in reverse-discrimination claims. All employment decisions—hiring, promotions, terminations—must be supported by legitimate, well-documented business reasons, regardless of the employee’s protected class. Training and Compliance: Employers should train supervisors and HR personnel to recognize and prevent all forms of workplace discrimination, including those affecting majority groups. Litigation Strategy: While employers can still use evidence like the decision-makers’ characteristics or the experiences of other employees to rebut discrimination claims, the Supreme Court has confirmed that reverse-discrimination claims face no higher burden of proof than other Title VII claims. DEI Considerations: The decision, particularly Justice Thomas’s concurrence, signals potential judicial skepticism toward DEI initiatives. Employers should review DEI programs to ensure compliance with Title VII and prepare for possible legal challenges. This ruling underscores the importance of equitable treatment across all employee groups and reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to uniform application of Title VII’s protections.

June 19, 2025

Labor and Employment

Workplace Violence: Why Employers Can’t Afford to Ignore the Warning Signs

When employers think about workplace safety, the conversation often begins and ends with OSHA inspections or slip-and-fall prevention. But in today’s world, the most urgent threat to your workforce isn’t on the floor. It’s in the atmosphere: workplace violence. Violence doesn’t just mean active shooter scenarios. It includes verbal threats, stalking, physical intimidation, domestic abuse that spills into the workplace, and psychological harassment. These are not just personnel issues but legal liabilities waiting to explode. The Legal Landscape is Shifting and Employers Must Keep Up Under OSHA’s General Duty Clause, employers are legally required to provide a safe working environment free from recognized hazards, including the risk of workplace violence. Failing to act on known threats can result in citations, civil liability, and, in extreme cases, criminal exposure. Add to that claims for negligent hiring, negligent retention, workers’ comp exposure, ADA violations, and reputational ruin, and the stakes become even clearer. Laws are continuing to evolve. California’s 2024 mandate for Workplace Violence Prevention Programs (WVPPs) set a new national standard, and other states, including New York, are following suit. Employers must now demonstrate proactive measures, not reactive apologies when something goes wrong. The Red Flags are Rarely Subtle and Often Dismissed Nearly every workplace violence incident is preceded by clear indicators: escalating arguments, erratic behavior, hostile emails, or an employee voicing concern about a colleague’s conduct. What’s dangerous — and legally reckless — is waiting until someone crosses the line before acting. Employers are expected to prevent foreseeable harm, which means acting before tragedy strikes. Your First Line of Defense: a Written, Enforced Violence Prevention Policy Organizations of all sizes and industries must have a clear, written policy for workplace violence prevention. This is not just a formality. Your workplace violence prevention policy should: Define prohibited conduct with precision, including threats, intimidation, and harassment. Create safe, accessible, and anonymous reporting channels. Establish a transparent response protocol. Reinforce zero tolerance for retaliation. This is your legal and cultural foundation. Training is Not Optional! It is a Legal and Practical Imperative A policy that sits unread on a shelf offers zero protection. Managers, supervisors, and employees must be trained to recognize red flags, de-escalate conflict, and report concerns safely and effectively. Even a single hour of annual training has proven to materially reduce risk. Training must be specific, interactive, and mandatory. Where appropriate, combine it with harassment prevention or ADA accommodation training; do not treat it as a check-the-box exercise. High-Risk Moments Demand Heightened Vigilance Terminations, layoffs, and performance-based discipline are flashpoints for violence. Employers should: Plan separation meetings carefully. Consider having security present. Conduct high-risk terminations off-site or via video if needed. Offer Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) where appropriate. The Right Team: Security, Legal, and Behavioral Health Professionals Working in Tandem Preventing and responding to workplace violence takes more than HR alone. You need a cross-functional team of: Security professionals who assess risk and implement physical safety protocols. Threat assessment experts (forensic psychologists, trained law enforcement) who evaluate risk and help strategize de-escalation. Employment counsel who understands the legal implications and can coordinate with law enforcement, courts, and insurers. Executive protection for high-profile or targeted employees. Each component must align under a single, integrated WVPP strategy. Real Estate and Isolated Work Environments Face Elevated Risk Industries like property management, real estate, and healthcare, where employees work alone, during off-hours, or interact frequently with the public, face unique and elevated exposure. Employers in these sectors must tailor policies, training, and security measures accordingly. Employer Liability is Real and Expensive Beyond OSHA citations, employers may face lawsuits alleging: Negligent hiring or retention. Failure to warn. ADA violations (e.g., mishandling mental health-related threats). Discrimination or retaliation for mishandled reporting. Employers cannot afford to be reactive. Workplace violence prevention is not about paranoia. It is about creating a culture of trust, accountability, and action. Employees are more likely to report threats when they believe the company will take them seriously. That alone can prevent tragedy. If your workplace violence prevention policy has not been reviewed in the last year or if your team has never been trained on recognizing or responding to threats, the time to act is now.

May 29, 2025

Labor and Employment

Weddings, Honeymoons, and Milestones: Employer Guidance for Time Off Requests

For HR leaders and business owners alike, the question is not whether employees will request time off for major life events, but when and how your organization will respond. Weddings, honeymoons, and personal milestones do not fall under FMLA or mandatory leave laws, but how you handle these moments speaks volumes about your culture, legal risk tolerance, and ability to retain top talent. There’s No Legal Right — But There Are Legal Risks It’s true: U.S. employers have no legal obligation under federal or state law to offer “wedding leave.” These events are not protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), paid sick leave laws, or any other statutory entitlement. But do not mistake a lack of mandate for a lack of risk. Employers who approve or deny time-off requests inconsistently, particularly in ways that appear to impact employees based on gender, race, religion, or other protected characteristics, may face claims under Title VII or state anti-discrimination laws. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) continues to emphasize enforcement around leave and accommodation policies that have a disparate impact. While “wedding leave” is not protected, your process must still comply with anti-discrimination and fair treatment standards. FMLA and Paid Leave Interaction: Be Clear on What Applies While weddings and honeymoons typically fall outside the scope of the FMLA, some related events might trigger protected leave. For example: Destination wedding involving a serious health condition (e.g., pre-surgical travel): FMLA may apply. Caring for a seriously ill spouse during or after a wedding or travel abroad: FMLA may apply. Employee illness or complications resulting in an inability to return to work: also potentially protected under FMLA. Moreover, the DOL recently clarified that when employees receive state or local paid family or medical leave benefits, employers cannot require them to simultaneously use accrued paid time off (PTO). This rule limits an employer’s ability to control how leave is structured when overlapping benefits are involved. Employers must understand the interplay between federal FMLA rights and state/local paid leave programs. Suppose an employee receives paid benefits through a government program (e.g., California PFL, DC Paid Family Leave). In that case, employers must designate FMLA leave when appropriate but may only allow PTO to be used as a supplement if mutually agreed, not mandated. Build Goodwill Without Losing Control Your policies should reflect both empathy and operational discipline. A wedding is not a frivolous request — it is a once-in-a-lifetime event that deeply matters to your employee. When employers respond with humanity and structure, it creates loyalty. That does not mean granting every request or disrupting workflow. It means having a clear, written policy that: Requires advance notice (e.g., 30–60 days). Reserves approval based on business needs. Clarifies whether PTO or unpaid leave may be used. Avoids any ambiguity about the consequences of overstaying approved leave. Consider including a “personal leave” clause in your employee handbook to address non-medical, non-FMLA, and non-emergency time off. Your language can be simple and clear: personal leave may be granted at management’s discretion, subject to operational needs. Watch Out for International Travel If the honeymoon involves international travel, extra scrutiny is warranted. Confirm the return-to-work date in writing before the employee departs, and clearly communicate that unapproved extensions may be treated as unexcused absences. Lingering COVID-era entry restrictions, visa issues, or logistical complications can cause delays, but those are not excuses for avoiding your leave policies. Where possible, plan backup support and document expectations in writing to avoid any disputes upon return. Small Gestures, Big Impact From a culture-building perspective, do not underestimate the power of a simple “Congratulations!” A card, a team mention, or a verbal note from leadership can make an employee feel valued. Some employers go a step further — offering a “wedding day off” or an extra PTO day. These gestures are optional, but impactful. Policy Consistency Is Your Best Defense If your leave policies are outdated, vague, or silent on personal time off, now is the time to revise them. Review and align them with current DOL guidance, FMLA regulations, and your state’s paid leave laws. Train your managers, document every request and response, and apply the same standards to every employee, regardless of role, relationship, or circumstance. Bottom Line for Employers Personal milestones matter to your employees and your business. They can create resentment, attrition, or even litigation when handled poorly. When handled well, they can build trust and reinforce culture. Be fair. Be clear. Be compliant. Be human. And most importantly, be consistent.

May 21, 2025

Labor and Employment

Under-Performing Pregnant or Disabled Employees: Balancing Performance Management with the ADA, FMLA, and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Performance conversations can quickly become legal minefields when an employee is pregnant, has a disability, or has requested protected leave. Too often, well-meaning employers delay intervention, mishandle documentation, or apply policies inconsistently, opening the door to claims under laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Employers navigating sensitive performance management matters should understand the laws at play and focus on the fundamentals: document thoroughly, communicate clearly, and take decisive action. Know the Landscape: ADA, PWFA, and FMLA in the Performance Context Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations that enable those individuals to perform the essential functions of their jobs—unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. Importantly, employees with disabilities must still meet legitimate performance and conduct standards. But before disciplining or terminating such an employee, an employer must consider whether: The performance issue is related to the disability. A reasonable accommodation could help the employee meet expectations. The employee was given a meaningful opportunity to improve. Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) Effective June 27, 2023, the PWFA expands protections for pregnant workers by requiring employers to offer reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions—similar to the ADA framework. Key differences between the PWFA and ADA include: The PWFA applies even to temporary or moderate limitations (e.g., lifting restrictions, more frequent breaks, and part-time schedules). Employers cannot require a pregnant employee to take leave if another accommodation is available. The statute prohibits retaliation for requesting or using a pregnancy-related accommodation. Performance issues that arise in the context of pregnancy or a related condition should be handled carefully—especially if the employee has requested (or is entitled to) accommodation under the PWFA. Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) The FMLA entitles eligible employees to up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for serious health conditions (including pregnancy), family caregiving, and bonding with a new child. Employers must tread carefully if an employee is underperforming while on FMLA leave or shortly after returning. Disciplining or terminating an employee for conduct related to a protected leave period can easily be construed as interference or retaliation—even if the employer’s intent was neutral. Common Pitfalls When Performance and Protected Status Intersect Ignoring the Role of Accommodation Employers must explore accommodations under both the ADA and PWFA before taking adverse action. If an employee’s performance is suffering due to a medical condition or pregnancy-related limitation, your first step is not discipline—it’s engagement. Legal obligation: Initiate the interactive process to determine if a reasonable accommodation would enable the employee to meet expectations. Failing to engage in this process is a leading cause of liability under both laws. Accommodations may include modified duties, schedule changes, ergonomic supports, remote work or temporary reassignment. Inconsistent Application of Performance Standards If an employer holds a pregnant or disabled employee to a higher (or lower) standard than others, the result is rarely good. Legal risk: Disparate treatment claims under Title VII, the ADA, the PWFA, or state human rights laws. Ensure your expectations, metrics, and disciplinary procedures are applied consistently—particularly regarding attendance, deadlines, and work quality. Poor or Biased Documentation Vague or emotionally charged performance documentation (“She’s not committed anymore since becoming pregnant”) is both unhelpful and legally risky. Best practice: Stick to objective, quantifiable facts. Instead of “seems distracted,” document details, like: “missed three deadlines in March; quality of reports has declined, with five factual errors noted.” Good documentation provides a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for action—and will support your decision if it’s challenged later. Disciplining During or After FMLA Leave Without a Clear Basis Courts closely scrutinize adverse actions taken during or shortly after FMLA leave. Even if you have valid concerns, timing matters. Tip: If an employee’s performance issues predate the leave, ensure you have clear records to show that the concerns existed—and were addressed—before the leave began. Avoid the appearance of retaliation by proceeding only when the documentation supports your decision. Practical Steps for Employers: How to Manage Performance Issues Lawfully and Effectively Train Managers to Spot Accommodation Triggers. Supervisors should loop in HR or legal before acting whenever an employee references a medical condition, pregnancy limitation, or medical leave. Engage Early and Document Diligently. Don’t delay performance conversations out of fear—address issues early, but do so thoughtfully. Document any meetings, expectations, improvement plans, and accommodations discussed or offered. Apply Policies Uniformly. Consistency is key, whether it’s an attendance policy, quality standard or progressive discipline process. Explore Accommodations Before Discipline. Particularly where medical or pregnancy-related limitations are at play, you must first assess whether the employee can meet expectations with reasonable support. Avoid “Gotcha” Terminations. Avoid abrupt disciplinary action if performance concerns haven’t been clearly documented and communicated. Courts frown on surprise terminations, especially after protected leave or accommodation requests. Consult Counsel Before Termination. Before terminating a pregnant or disabled employee—or one who recently returned from leave—have a legal review of the facts, documentation, and process. A brief consultation can prevent months of costly litigation. Pregnancy and disability do not shield employees from accountability, but they do change how employers must approach performance management. With the passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and the continued complexity of ADA and FMLA compliance, employers must proceed with care, compassion, and a clear understanding of their legal duties. Performance issues don’t go away on their own, but mishandling them can create far bigger problems. The key is to act early, engage meaningfully, and document everything.

April 30, 2025

Labor and Employment

Does Your Dress Code Discriminate? What Employers Need to Know

In the ever-evolving landscape of workplace discrimination laws, savvy employers are reexamining longstanding policies—including those that may not seem controversial at first glance. One of the most commonly overlooked (yet frequently litigated) areas? The company dress code. What was once a straightforward requirement—“business casual” or “jeans on Fridays”—has become a complex legal issue, especially as courts and administrative agencies scrutinize how dress and grooming policies intersect with anti-discrimination laws. From hairstyle protections to gender identity accommodations, the modern workplace dress code carries more legal weight than many employers realize. Here’s what you need to know to ensure your company’s dress code reflects both current legal standards and best practices. The Legal Foundation: Employers May Set Reasonable Standards As a general matter, employers are permitted to impose reasonable restrictions on workplace appearance. Courts have long recognized a company’s legitimate interest in maintaining a professional image—especially for employees who interact with clients, vendors, or the public—or in enforcing safety-based attire requirements depending on the nature of the work. However, dress codes must be implemented in a way that does not discriminate directly or indirectly. Your workplace dress code should not: Impose unequal burdens on certain groups Reinforce outdated gender stereotypes Fail to provide religious or medical accommodations Be applied inconsistently or selectively Gender-Specific Policies: Proceed with Caution Historically, some courts have permitted different grooming or dress requirements for male and female employees—as long as the policy is applied evenly and doesn’t impose a greater burden on one gender. However, employers relying on these traditional standards may be exposing themselves to risk. Courts have increasingly accepted Title VII claims based on gender stereotyping, where policies require employees to present in ways that conform to traditional gender roles—for instance, requiring women to wear skirts or prohibiting men from growing long hair. These requirements can give rise to claims when they compel employees to dress in a manner inconsistent with their gender identity or personal expression. Several states and municipalities have taken a more explicit approach. In California, for example, it is unlawful to require women to wear skirts. In Washington, DC, the law prohibits discrimination based on appearance, which includes dress and grooming. Employers operating in multiple jurisdictions should review policies with a careful eye toward state and local requirements, which may be more protective than federal law. Gender Identity and Expression: Aligning with Bostock and Beyond In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, employers must recognize that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. As a result, enforcing gender-specific dress codes or grooming policies that conflict with an employee’s gender identity may constitute unlawful discrimination. Many jurisdictions have adopted laws that go even further, requiring employers to affirmatively allow employees to dress in accordance with their gender identity or expression. Employers should carefully assess whether their appearance standards respect these legal obligations and provide sufficient flexibility. The Rise of Hairstyle Discrimination Laws A growing number of states have passed legislation recognizing that grooming policies can serve as proxies for racial discrimination. Laws in Maryland, Virginia, California, New York, and others prohibit workplace restrictions that ban natural hairstyles or protective styles such as afros, braids, locks, and twists. These laws are often framed as extensions of race discrimination protections under Title VII. Employers should avoid policies that prohibit or limit hairstyles unless there is a demonstrable, legitimate business justification—such as a safety concern in an industrial setting—and even then, the policy must be narrowly tailored. Accommodations for Religious Beliefs and Medical Conditions Under Title VII, employers must reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs, including those that conflict with dress or grooming policies. This may include permitting head coverings, religious jewelry, or exceptions to attire norms due to modesty practices. Similarly, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers must accommodate qualified employees with disabilities. For instance, a blanket ban on facial hair may need to yield to an employee with a medical condition that makes shaving painful or harmful. Failure to consider these accommodations not only exposes employers to liability—it also undermines inclusivity and employee morale. Union Activity and Protected Expression Dress codes must also respect employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects their ability to engage in concerted activity, including the right to wear union insignia or clothing expressing workplace concerns. A policy that broadly bans “derogatory” or “inappropriate” attire without a clear connection to legitimate business interests—like safety or security—may be deemed unlawfully overbroad by the National Labor Relations Board. Best Practices for Employers To ensure that dress codes meet legal standards and reflect modern workplace norms, employers should consider the following: Use Neutral Language: Policies should be gender-neutral, avoiding references to attire “expected” of men or women. Avoid Over-Specification: Instead of listing every acceptable or unacceptable item of clothing, opt for broader, flexible guidelines (e.g., “employees must present a clean and professional appearance appropriate to their role”). Be Consistent: Apply the policy uniformly across departments and roles, unless a legitimate business reason supports a distinction. Build in Flexibility: Include language acknowledging the need to accommodate religious practices, cultural expression, or medical conditions. Review Regularly: Revisit your dress code periodically in light of new legal developments and cultural trends. Final Thoughts While office dress codes may seem like a minor issue, they often sit at the intersection of major employment law concerns. A policy that is too rigid—or worse, discriminatory in application—can lead to reputational harm and costly litigation. The good news is that most companies can maintain professionalism without micromanaging wardrobe choices. A thoughtful, updated policy can reinforce your company’s values while keeping you compliant with the law. If you have questions about your company’s dress code or need assistance revising your policies, consult employment counsel familiar with the latest developments in federal, state, and local law. A well-drafted dress code can do more than keep the office looking sharp—it can help your company avoid some very real legal pitfalls.

April 16, 2025

Labor and Employment

The Future of DEI in the Private Sector: Navigating a Changing Legal Landscape

The private sector's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) landscape is undergoing significant transformation in response to evolving federal policies and legal challenges. Two executive orders from President Donald Trump in early 2025—Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”—mark a clear shift in the federal government’s stance on DEI initiatives. These orders eliminate DEI programs within federal agencies, revoke affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, and impose new compliance obligations. As a result, private employers—especially federal contractors and grant recipients—should reassess their DEI strategies, considering increased scrutiny and potential legal risks. Executive Orders and Policy Shifts The Trump administration has ramped up its scrutiny of DEI initiatives across both the federal government and the private sector, treating employment practices that take protected characteristics into account as potentially unlawful. While the Administration has not explicitly defined "illegal DEI," public statements suggest that policies tying compensation to diversity targets, factoring protected characteristics into hiring, or requiring diverse interview slates are high-risk. However, initiatives such as open employee resource groups and broader candidate pools may face less scrutiny. Companies should align internal policies with disclosures and prepare for potential government investigations. Executive Order 14151, issued on January 20, 2025, mandates the termination of all federal DEI-related offices, grants, and programs, asserting that such initiatives violate civil rights laws. The following day, Executive Order 14173 rescinded affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, directing the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program to halt diversity-related enforcement. Contractors must now certify compliance with anti-discrimination laws, with noncompliance potentially leading to False Claims Act liability. On February 5, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division announced plans to investigate and penalize illegal DEI mandates in the private sector and federally funded institutions. Simultaneously, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) instructed federal agencies to remove unlawful diversity requirements from hiring and selection processes, reinforcing a shift toward merit-based employment policies. Expanded Enforcement Landscape: What Employers Must Do Now—and Why Private businesses must take immediate and deliberate steps to evaluate their DEI policies and practices and craft a strategic response. That response may involve revising existing policies, reaffirming a commitment to DEI (whether amended or intact), or preparing to pause, pivot, or defend current practices. In today’s fast-moving and high-stakes enforcement environment, inaction is not a neutral stance. It is a strategic decision—one that could expose an organization to government scrutiny, private litigation, reputational backlash, internal tension, or all of the above. Executive Order 14173 signals a dramatic expansion in the federal government’s oversight of diversity-related initiatives, extending well beyond public institutions and federal contractors. The order explicitly instructs all agencies to investigate what it terms “illegal” DEI preferences in the private sector and to issue formal enforcement recommendations within 120 days. These directives apply not only to publicly traded corporations but also to large nonprofits, philanthropic foundations, professional associations, and major universities—broadening the scope of potential enforcement targets across virtually every major sector of the economy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is taking active steps to implement the administration’s vision. EEOC Chair Andrea R. Lucas has publicly committed to rooting out what she describes as unlawful DEI-driven discrimination, particularly those policies based on race or sex. The agency has removed language related to gender identity from its internal and public-facing platforms and has emphasized a shift toward a strictly merit-based framework in alignment with the administration’s priorities. In parallel, other federal agencies have been tasked with developing litigation strategies and potential regulatory actions to deter identity-based preferences, creating an increasingly complex legal landscape for employers. What makes this moment particularly challenging is the legal ambiguity that now surrounds many DEI practices. Although Executive Order 14173 stops short of banning all DEI initiatives, it targets those that include quotas, demographic set-asides, or explicit preferences based on protected characteristics—practices the administration has signaled are incompatible with federal civil rights law. These categories of DEI programming now carry heightened legal risk, even if they were once considered industry best practices. This presents a difficult paradox for private employers. Continuing with DEI programs may trigger reverse discrimination lawsuits, internal employee complaints, or direct federal investigation. At the same time, rolling back or eliminating those programs altogether may lead to claims of disparate impact, undermine employee morale, damage recruitment and retention efforts, and erode hard-won reputational goodwill. In short, the stakes are high, and the risks exist on both sides of the equation. Employers cannot afford to take a passive or reactive posture. Whether your organization has a well-established DEI framework or is in the early stages of building one, now is the time to conduct a thorough review, understand your exposure, and make intentional decisions that balance legal compliance with business goals and organizational values. The key is to act—not out of fear but with clarity, strategy, and purpose. Judicial Challenges and the Ongoing Legal Debate These actions have triggered a wave of litigation, contributing to a rapidly evolving and uncertain legal landscape for private employers and institutions navigating DEI compliance. On February 3, 2025, several advocacy and academic organizations—including the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and the American Association of University Professors—filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking to block key provisions of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173. In National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education et al. v. Trump et al., the plaintiffs argued that the orders violated the First and Fifth Amendments by imposing vague and overbroad restrictions on speech and association, and by chilling lawful DEI-related activities. On February 21, 2025, Judge Adam B. Abelson issued a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining federal agencies from enforcing the Termination, Certification, and Enforcement Threat Provisions of the executive orders. However, the court allowed federal investigations into alleged “illegal DEI discrimination” to proceed, emphasizing that while certain aspects of the orders could be constitutionally enforced, others lacked clarity and posed significant risks to protected constitutional rights. Judge Abelson denied the Trump administration’s motion for a stay of the injunction on March 3, 2025, finding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm and that the challenged provisions raised serious constitutional concerns. The court also declined to limit the relief to the named plaintiffs, citing the broad implications of the orders across multiple sectors and jurisdictions. On March 10, 2025, the court reaffirmed that the preliminary injunction applied nationwide to all federal executive agencies, departments, and officials—excluding only the President—underscoring that executive authority must still operate within constitutional boundaries. However, on March 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction, effectively restoring full enforcement of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 pending appeal. The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel was issued shortly after the district court addressed plaintiffs’ concerns that the Department of Justice had failed to comply with the earlier injunction. In a rare move, each judge on the Fourth Circuit panel issued a separate concurring opinion. Chief Judge Albert Diaz acknowledged the controversy surrounding DEI and expressed support for those working to advance such initiatives, while also noting that neither executive order defined the term “DEI” or its components. Judge Pamela Harris concurred in the stay based on the limited scope of the executive orders but cautioned that overbroad enforcement could still raise significant First Amendment and Due Process concerns. Judge Allison Jones Rushing, in her concurrence, questioned the breadth of the district court’s injunction and emphasized judicial impartiality, pushing back on the normative statements in support of DEI expressed by her colleagues. On March 17, 2025, the Fourth Circuit requested the parties to respond to a proposed briefing schedule by March 24, which could extend the briefing into late May. While the stay allows the executive orders to remain in effect during the appeal, the ultimate legality of the orders remains unresolved and may ultimately be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, private employers and institutions should stay closely attuned to these legal developments as the balance between regulatory enforcement and constitutional protections continues to shift. The evolving litigation landscape may significantly impact compliance obligations, enforcement risks, and the future of DEI-related initiatives nationwide. Business Consideration and Strategic Adjustments for Employers Despite increased federal scrutiny, businesses must carefully balance compliance with broader DEI objectives, ensuring alignment with legal requirements and inclusivity goals. Actions to consider include: Conducting a Comprehensive Legal and Risk Assessment - Employers should evaluate their DEI programs for compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws. Initiatives involving quotas or preferential treatment based on protected characteristics should be reviewed and, if necessary, modified. Refining DEI Messaging and Training Programs - Businesses should reassess their public statements and training programs to emphasize equal opportunity principles while avoiding language that could be construed as endorsing unlawful preferences. Monitoring Legislative and Judicial Developments - Employers should stay informed about regulatory changes that may impact DEI initiatives. Consulting with legal counsel and industry groups can help businesses navigate this uncertain environment. Adapting DEI Strategies to Align with Legal and Business Goals - Companies should continue fostering inclusive workplaces through legally compliant initiatives, such as mentorship programs, leadership development efforts, and workplace culture assessments. Businesses can maintain their DEI commitments while minimizing legal by focusing on equity and opportunity rather than preferential treatment.  Conclusion The private sector must navigate a complex and evolving DEI landscape shaped by federal policies, legal challenges and shifting public expectations. While government-mandated DEI programs face heightened scrutiny, corporate diversity initiatives remain a key business strategy. However, evolving executive actions introduce ambiguity in compliance obligations, requiring companies to balance federal court interpretations of Title VII, state and local anti-discrimination laws, and international regulations. By proactively adapting to these changes, businesses can continue to promote inclusivity while ensuring compliance and mitigating legal risks.

March 28, 2025

Labor and Employment

Adjusting Job Descriptions for Business Needs – What You Need to Know

Changing an employee's job description during business restructuring can be tricky, especially when balancing business needs with legal requirements. Can human resource managers change an employee’s job description to align with new business needs without the employee’s consent?  From a legal perspective, the general answer is yes; in some cases, you can make these changes. Business Necessity and Employment At-Will Unless there is a specific clause in an employment contract or a collective bargaining agreement that dictates otherwise, employers generally have the right to adjust an employee’s job duties, schedule, or work location based on business needs. This flexibility is part of the principle of “at-will” employment, which allows employers to make changes to terms and conditions of employment as long as those changes don’t violate any specific laws or agreements. However, it’s important to note that some local and state regulations may impose additional requirements. For example, certain states and cities have predictive scheduling laws that require businesses to provide workers with advance notice of schedule changes. If the company fails to do so, it could face penalties. Additionally, in some places, if an employee’s scheduled hours are cut upon arrival to work, they may be entitled to what’s known as "reporting pay" or "show-up pay" — a set minimum amount for showing up, even if they aren’t needed to work their full shift. Considerations Under the FMLA If your employee is on Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, you must proceed with caution. The FMLA protects employees from having their job duties, schedules, or work locations changed in a way that negatively impacts their ability to take leave. For example, an employer cannot reduce the employee’s hours to avoid their eligibility for FMLA or transfer the employee to a position that discourages the use of leave. Moreover, when the employee returns from FMLA leave, they must be reinstated to their same job or an equivalent one. An "equivalent" position is one that is virtually identical in terms of pay, benefits, working conditions, and responsibilities. While you can offer the employee a different shift, schedule, or position after they return from leave, you cannot pressure them to accept it if it is against their wishes. Retaliation and Discrimination Protections It’s also important to remember that changing an employee’s job duties or schedule in retaliation for exercising their legal rights can result in legal violations. For example, retaliating against an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim, taking FMLA leave, or engaging in other protected activities is illegal. Similarly, making changes based on discriminatory reasons (e.g., reducing hours or authority for only certain groups of employees, such as women) is also prohibited. Key Takeaways for HR Managers Check your company’s policies: Ensure there are no employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements that limit your ability to change the employee’s job description. Know the laws in your state and locality: Be mindful of predictive scheduling laws and reporting pay regulations that may impact your ability to make changes. FMLA considerations: If the employee is on FMLA leave, be careful not to make changes that interfere with their rights to take leave or return to a similar position. Avoid retaliation or discrimination: Ensure that any changes are not made in retaliation for an employee’s legal rights or based on unlawful discrimination. When changing an employee’s job description, balance business needs with legal compliance and clear communication. While you may have the authority to adjust roles, keep employees informed, consider their concerns, and comply with relevant laws to help prevent potential disputes. Thoughtful planning and transparency can go a long way in maintaining a positive workplace during change.

March 20, 2025

Labor and Employment

Office Romance: Navigating Workplace Relationships and Managing Legal Risks

Dear Sarah, Two of my employees have started dating, and I’m worried it might affect their work or lead to complaints from others. Should we have a formal policy on workplace relationships? Are we even allowed to have such a policy? Yours in keeping it professional this Valentine’s Day (and beyond), The HR Cupid The HR Cupid, I can understand your concern. Office relationships, while not uncommon, can quickly become a tricky issue for employers to manage. Whether it's gossip, a drop in productivity, or potential legal claims, workplace romances can create significant risks for both employees and the company. The good news is, with a clear policy and proactive approach, you can mitigate these risks while still allowing employees to navigate their personal lives in a professional manner. Can You Have a Policy on Workplace Relationships? Yes, you absolutely can have a policy on workplace romances. In fact, it’s strongly recommended that employers do so. While outright banning office relationships is typically unreasonable (and likely unenforceable), a policy that establishes clear expectations for conduct can help mitigate potential risks. The reality is that office romances can open the door to several issues, including sexual harassment, retaliation, favoritism, and even workplace violence in extreme cases. These risks can lead to significant legal liabilities if not managed carefully. A thoughtful, well-drafted policy can go a long way in helping you prevent problems before they arise. What Are the Risks of Office Relationships? There are a number of risks to consider when office romance enters the picture: Sexual Harassment Claims: One of the most common legal risks of office romances is sexual harassment. These claims often arise when one employee feels their personal space or boundaries are violated by a romantic advance, particularly in relationships between supervisors and subordinates. Even consensual relationships can lead to claims if other employees perceive favoritism or if the relationship sours. Public displays of affection, or a sudden shift in the dynamics between employees, can also create uncomfortable work environments and lead to hostile work environment claims. Retaliation: If an employee rebuffs unwanted advances or ends a relationship, retaliation can become a concern. For example, an employee might claim that they were treated unfairly or passed over for promotions as a result of rejecting or ending a romantic relationship. Retaliation claims are often rooted in employees feeling that they were punished for not engaging in or maintaining a relationship. Favoritism and Conflicts of Interest: Relationships between supervisors and subordinates carry the risk of favoritism claims. Employees may feel that the romantic couple is receiving special treatment, whether in terms of assignments, promotions, or performance reviews. Even if favoritism is not actually occurring, the perception of bias can cause significant issues with morale and productivity. Workplace Violence: While rare, workplace violence stemming from a failed romance or unrequited affection is a very real possibility. Employers are responsible for maintaining a safe work environment, and if a situation involving a breakup or unreturned advances escalates into violence, the company could be held liable if they failed to manage the risks. How Can Employers Minimize Risk? There are several steps employers can take to reduce the risks associated with office relationships: Bar Romance Between Supervisors and Subordinates: Relationships between supervisors and subordinates are among the riskiest for sexual harassment claims and can lead to serious conflicts of interest. Many employers choose to prohibit these types of relationships or require the employee in the supervisory role to disclose the relationship so that any necessary adjustments can be made. A direct reporting relationship between a supervisor and their partner could create significant problems, and it’s often best to ensure that there is no overlap in their work responsibilities. Implement a “Love Contract”: A “love contract” is an agreement between two employees in a romantic relationship that affirms their relationship is consensual and not a form of sexual harassment. It can also include a reminder that the employees are expected to maintain a professional demeanor while at work. While not a guaranteed shield against legal action, it can provide a level of transparency and reduce the risk of future claims. Ensure Access to Sexual Harassment Training and Reporting Channels: One of the most effective ways to minimize the risk of sexual harassment claims is to provide ongoing sexual harassment training for all employees. This training should clearly define inappropriate behaviors, outline reporting procedures, and reassure employees that complaints will be taken seriously. Additionally, offering multiple, accessible reporting channels (such as anonymous hotlines or online forms) can help ensure that employees feel safe reporting any issues before they escalate. Communication and Monitoring Policies: In today’s digital age, communication often takes place via email, company chat systems, or even social media. Employers should make it clear that digital communications within the workplace are monitored and that harassment can take place through these channels as well. Having a policy that outlines acceptable use of company technology can act as a deterrent and ensure employees understand the expectations for professional conduct online. What Should Employers Do When Things Go Wrong? If a workplace romance goes sour, the situation can quickly escalate. The best defense for an employer is to ensure that all preventative measures—policies, training, and monitoring—are in place and adhered to. Courts will look at whether an employer has taken reasonable steps to address potential issues and mitigate risks. If a claim is filed, employers who have documented their policies, communicated expectations clearly, and enforced those policies will be in a better position to defend themselves. Additionally, any documentation related to the relationship (such as the disclosure of the relationship or a signed love contract) can be useful in protecting the company’s interests. Final Thoughts: Office Romance, Yes—But With Caution While you can’t stop love from blooming in the workplace, you can take steps to ensure that it doesn’t create legal or professional problems. By implementing a clear policy on workplace relationships, providing sexual harassment training, and setting expectations around professional behavior, you can manage the risks and allow your employees to balance their personal and professional lives effectively.

February 14, 2025

Labor and Employment

Sports Betting in the Workplace: Ensuring the Super Bowl and March Madness Don't Cause Legal Madness and Super Problems

Dear Sarah, My employees want to do a fantasy football league. I don’t really care as long as it doesn’t mess with their work. Is there any reason I need to worry about this, or can I just let them go at it? – Janet "I’m Not the HR Police" from Accounting It’s the season for sports betting excitement, with the Super Bowl upon us and March Madness just around the corner. Your employees are likely buzzing with talk of squares, brackets, and maybe even some secret side bets. While these friendly competitions can boost morale and foster camaraderie (especially for remote or hybrid teams), there are some legal considerations to keep in mind. Because as much fun as a bracket challenge can be, sports betting could land you in a legal bind if you're not careful. Is Workplace Sports Betting Legal? Thirty-eight states and Washington D.C. have legalized sports betting in some form since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal ban in 2018. But here’s the kicker: the regulations vary widely. Some states have specific exceptions that allow for “social gambling,” meaning office pools can be permissible if they meet certain conditions, like ensuring no one running the pool profits. The rules on what qualifies as a “social” game and what constitutes “illegal” gambling can be murky, and those rules are still evolving. For instance, New York introduced a bill in 2023 to specifically legalize Super Bowl squares. Gambling and unlicensed sports betting, including office pools, are prohibited in many states and under the Interstate Wire Act of 1961 (IWA) and the Uniform Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). The IWA makes it illegal for anyone in the U.S. to place or receive wagers on any sporting event or contest that involves interstate or foreign commerce. The UIGEA criminalizes the act of accepting funds for unlawful internet gambling, specifically by those "engaged in the business of betting or wagering." With the rise of remote and hybrid work setups, there's an increased risk that office pools could cross state lines, triggering the laws of multiple states and federal gambling regulations., So while you might think it’s just a friendly office competition, the law might say otherwise in certain jurisdictions. Understanding Which State Laws Apply Modern companies are no longer limited to hiring people from the state in which they are based, and remote-first businesses often have employees spread across multiple states with differing legal stances on sports betting. In most cases, the laws that govern sports betting are determined by where employees are physically located. If an employee is based in a state where sports betting is illegal, they may be restricted from participating in sports betting activities, regardless of whether the company itself operates in a jurisdiction where betting is legal. Companies with large, distributed teams need to have systems in place to track the physical location of employees and assess legal requirements accordingly. This is where working with a payroll provider, human resources tools, or compliance experts can be incredibly valuable in staying informed about location-based regulations. The rise of fully remote and hybrid work models has made this issue even more complex. For companies with employees working remotely from different states, where the employee is physically working from at any given time becomes key. For example, if an employee works from a state where sports betting is illegal, they may not be permitted to place bets, even if they are working for a company based in a state where the activity is allowed. If a company is headquartered in a state where sports betting is legal, but some employees are working remotely from states where it’s banned, the company may need to consider how to handle internal policies and even provide guidance about prohibited activities. Consider Non-Monetary Alternatives: Prizes Don’t Have to Be Cash The risk of violating gambling laws can be reduced significantly when the pool doesn’t involve money. You could opt for fun, non-cash prizes like extra time off, a team lunch, or even just bragging rights. These types of prizes keep things light and engaging without the potential legal risks associated with monetary rewards Maintain Productivity Amidst the Madness Between filling out brackets and selecting squares, productivity could take a hit. If employees are sneaking off to check scores, make sure you set expectations about what’s acceptable during work hours. Some companies have implemented policies where pools and betting activities are restricted to non-work hours, or at least during designated breaks. This helps mitigate the negative impact on productivity and keeps employees engaged without the legal headaches. Mitigate Common Risks with Written Policies A well-drafted company policy on sports betting can help minimize legal risk and clarify the boundaries for employees. A “no betting” policy or a policy that outlines clear, specific rules for office pools is a great start. An effective company policy on sports betting should touch on: Participation: Restrict participation to employees in states where it’s legal and clarify eligibility criteria. Emphasize that participation should always be voluntary to respect those who choose to opt out for personal, religious, or addiction-related reasons. Profits and Prizes: To avoid crossing into illegal territory, ensure that the person running the pool isn’t taking a cut of the money. This is a common rule in states that allow office pools: the organizer must not profit in any way. Be sure to also comply with any local laws that limit or restrict prize money. If your pool will offer non-monetary prizes, outline them in your policy. Procedures and Expectations: Prohibit employees from using work devices or company time to organize or manage pools. Encourage participation during breaks or outside of work hours. You should also establish procedures to address any potential complaints or violations that may arise to ensure fairness and transparency. Takeaway Where legal, office sports betting pools can be a great way to build morale and camaraderie, but they require careful planning to comply with the law. With the proper planning and compliance with the relevant laws, you can foster a fun and compliant workplace environment that avoids unnecessary risks.

February 5, 2025

Labor and Employment

It Ends with Us, But Continues in Court: Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's Legal Battle

The film “It Ends With Us” was a massive hit in 2024, grossing $350 million globally. Yet, the drama surrounding the film has shifted from the big screen to the courtroom, with a series of legal battles between its stars, Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, that have captivated both the public and legal observers alike. In the ongoing legal battle between actors Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, a federal judge has stepped in to try and quell the increasingly public war of words. At a hearing in Manhattan on February 3, 2025, Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered both legal teams to limit their out-of-court commentary, citing a New York rule (Rule 3.8) designed to prevent public statements that could prejudice legal proceedings. This intervention comes as the public has been parsing footage of a scene at issue in Lively’s lawsuit, recently released alongside a statement from Baldoni’s attorney. Baldoni’s team has also launched a website where users can access court documents related to the film's production. The lawsuits present conflicting accounts of events on the set of "It Ends With Us," an adaptation of a novel about domestic abuse, in which Lively plays the heroine and Baldoni her abusive partner. Lively’s suit accuses Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios CEO Jamey Heath of sexual harassment, including entering her trailer uninvited while she was undressed or breastfeeding, improvising unwanted kisses, and discussing his “previous pornography addiction.” She claims that after raising objections, Wayfarer launched a “retaliation campaign” against her. Baldoni’s suit denies these accusations, claiming all trailer entries were consensual, kissing scenes were not improvised, and the discussion of his past addiction was contextualized. He accuses Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist of defamation and extortion, claiming she sought to “extract concessions and creative control” of the movie. He further alleges that he was the victim of her attempts to damage his reputation. The hearing was the first court appearance by the lawyers since Lively filed her initial complaint in California in December, followed by a New York Times report on her accusations. Baldoni has since sued the Times for libel, claiming the article omitted key information. The Times has stated they will vigorously defend their reporting. Judge Liman, acknowledging the extensive public record of the accusations, emphasized that the court proceedings, not public pronouncements, will ultimately determine the facts of the case. Neither Lively nor Baldoni was present at the hearing. Initial Allegations On December 20, 2024, Blake Lively filed a formal complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, accusing director and co-star Justin Baldoni, producer Jamey Heath, and Wayfarer Studios of sexual harassment and creating a toxic work environment. It seems that behind the movie magic was a not-so-glamorous reality. Lively’s complaint lays out a series of troubling incidents, including Baldoni allegedly ignoring intimacy protocols, improvising unapproved physical contact (like, biting Lively’s lower lip during a scene), and inserting controversial sexual content into the film without consent. Meanwhile, producer Heath is accused of showing Lively an unsolicited nude video of his wife giving birth. From a legal standpoint, these allegations—if proven true—could present serious violations under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FEHA protects workers from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and sexual harassment is a particularly serious violation that could expose the production company and individuals involved to significant liability. In Lively’s case, the allegations regarding unsolicited physical contact and the lack of consent for intimate scenes could amount to unlawful sexual harassment in the workplace. These types of cases are taken very seriously in California, where the state’s strict sexual harassment laws are designed to prevent such behavior and ensure that victims have legal recourse. The real complexity in these claims lies in proving the behavior was pervasive and unwelcome. Given that these events allegedly took place during production and involved multiple key players—director Baldoni and producer Heath—it will be important for Lively to provide evidence of the repeated and pervasive nature of the harassment to make her case. The New York Times published an article about the allegations the very next day, also hinting at deeper tensions, including a campaign allegedly aimed at destroying Lively’s reputation. Baldoni Fires Back with Defamation by Implication Claim Ten days later, Baldoni fired back and sued the New York Times for defamation on December 31, 2024[i]. Baldoni claims the publication’s story about the sexual harassment allegations against him was part of a broader “smear campaign” orchestrated to undermine him. This counters Lively’s claims; Baldoni accuses Lively of damaging his reputation through false reporting. Baldoni’s lawsuit presents an interesting legal angle, focusing on defamation by implication. According to his complaint, the New York Times article contained damaging content that painted him in a false light. While the article never directly accused him of sexual harassment, Baldoni contends that the context and tone of the reporting led readers to infer his guilt. Defamation by implication occurs when the publication or communication indirectly suggests false information that harms a person’s reputation. Baldoni argues that the story—by highlighting Lively’s allegations without providing his side—implicitly presented him as the perpetrator. Moreover, Baldoni also seeks to address the “damage to his career” caused by these articles, which is a standard claim in defamation suits (i.e., the plaintiff is claiming that the defamatory statements harmed their reputation and resulted in professional or financial loss). He’s not just asking for retraction or correction; he’s pursuing actual damages (compensation for the real losses suffered as a result of the defamation) and possibly punitive damages (additional financial penalties aimed at punishing the defendant if the reporting was done with reckless disregard for the truth or malicious intent). Baldoni has also claimed that Lively was actively working against him throughout production, asserting that she "berated" him on set and attempted to undermine his creative control. The lawsuit further alleges that Lively edited the film’s final cut without his approval and attempted to block him from attending the premiere. Baldoni claims that Lively’s actions amounted to a "pattern of vindictiveness" designed to ruin his professional standing. This part of Baldoni’s claim—focused on the editing of the film and his exclusion from the premiere—could potentially lead to a breach of contract or tortious interference claim. A breach of contract claim would suggest that terms agreed upon in a legal agreement were violated, while tortious interference occurs when someone intentionally disrupts the relationship or contractual agreement between parties, potentially leading to significant financial damages and reputational harm. Film directors often have the final say on creative decisions, so Lively’s interference could be viewed as overstepping and damaging to Baldoni’s reputation in the film industry. Additionally, Baldoni claims that Lively, along with her husband Ryan Reynolds, leveraged their Hollywood clout to push for his removal from the film's production, including allegedly pressuring William Morris Entertainment to drop him as a client. If true, this could form the basis for a tortious interference claim. In such a claim, one party would argue that another intentionally interfered with their contractual relationships or business dealings. This can be tricky to prove, as it requires showing that the interference was unjustified and intentional. Lively Escalates Her Complaint into a Federal Lawsuit On the same day as Baldoni filed his lawsuit against the New York Times in Los Angeles, Lively formalized her California Civil Rights Department complaint into a federal lawsuit[ii] in New York.  According to Lively’s lawsuit, Baldoni, Heath, and a crisis PR expert named Melissa Nathan tried to bury Lively’s reputation by manipulating social media, planting negative stories, and leveraging crisis communications to protect Baldoni’s public image. Lively claims that this campaign included texts from Nathan and Baldoni discussing how to “bury” people and target women in the public eye. The lawsuit alleges that even the big money folks at Wayfarer Studios, including co-founder Steve Sarowitz, were involved in the plot. From a legal perspective, if Lively’s claims about the smear campaign are proven, this could be a strong case for defamation and tortious interference. Defamation requires showing that false statements were made about a person, which harmed their reputation. In this case, the alleged "burying" of Lively through negative media manipulation would likely involve defamatory statements, whether directly or indirectly implied. Tortious interference claims, on the other hand, focus on one party intentionally damaging another’s business or reputation by improper means. If Lively can demonstrate that Baldoni and his team used these tactics intentionally to damage her career, there could be significant legal repercussions for all involved. However, the challenge for Lively will be proving that these negative media tactics were both intentional and defamatory, rather than part of a broader public relations strategy designed to mitigate the fallout from the initial complaints. PR teams are often hired to clean up a reputation, but if they cross the line into deceptive practices or actively seek to harm someone's reputation, they may have legal exposure. The decision to file the lawsuit in New York—despite the initial complaint being lodged in California—appears to be a strategic move regarding forum selection. California might offer more protections under its state laws, but New York law allows for quicker and more direct access to the courts, enabling Lively and her legal team to bypass some procedural hurdles and go straight to litigation. Additionally, the New York venue may offer a broader legal framework by incorporating both federal and state claims, and it could potentially provide a more favorable jurisdiction for Lively's case, particularly considering that much of the case's events occurred in New York. Lively’s complaint included demands for a jury trial. Baldoni Also Sues Lively in the Southern District of New York Adding another layer to the legal battle, Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios filed a lawsuit[iii] against Lively, Reynolds, and publicist Leslie Sloane on January 16, 2025, seeking a staggering $400 million in damages. This suit, filed in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, expands upon the existing claims, alleging civil extortion, defamation, and a series of contract-related violations. This lawsuit reinforces the argument that the conflict originated from a creative struggle. It alleges that Lively gradually increased her influence, demanding creative control beyond the typical scope of an actor's role. This included taking over wardrobe decisions, rewriting scenes, creating her own film cut, and ultimately demanding Baldoni's exclusion from promotional activities. The lawsuit vehemently denies any sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior by Baldoni, Heath, or any member of the production team. Instead, it accuses Lively and Reynolds of engaging in "extortionate threats" to damage Baldoni's reputation. Baldoni amended his complaint on January 31, 2025, just days before the scheduled initial pretrial conference. In the amended filing, which now includes the New York Times as a defendant, Baldoni alleges that metadata on the New York Times' website reveals the paper had access to Lively's civil rights complaint at least 11 days prior to their bombshell December 21st report. That report, titled "'We Can Bury Anyone': Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine," accused Baldoni and his publicists of orchestrating a campaign to damage Lively's reputation, seemingly in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment on set. This new information regarding the Times' prior knowledge of the complaint raises questions about the timing and context of their reporting. Furthermore, the amended lawsuit includes new claims regarding Ryan Reynolds' portrayal of the character Nicepool in "Deadpool & Wolverine," with Baldoni accusing Reynolds of using the character to mock and bully him. The amended filing includes claims for civil extortion, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, promissory fraud, and breach of implied-in-fact contract. Leaked Footage, Gag Order Request, and Website Launch On January 21, 2025, Justin Baldoni's legal team dropped a bombshell: a 10-minute video from the "It Ends With Us" set. This move, intended to counter Blake Lively's sexual harassment allegations, captures intimate moments, including a rehearsal of a romantic dance with Lively. While Baldoni claims the footage exonerates him, Lively's team argues it actually supports her claims, pointing to specific scenes as evidence of inappropriate behavior. In a dramatic escalation, Lively and Reynolds filed a motion for a gag order against Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman. They accuse Freedman of a relentless media campaign, including inflammatory statements and potential leaks, aimed at swaying public opinion and prejudicing the jury pool. This, they allege, is a continuation of the alleged retaliation orchestrated by Baldoni and his team since Lively first spoke out. Additionally, a day after amending his New York complaint on January 31, 2025, Baldoni’s legal team launched a website, featuring the amended complaint and a detailed timeline of events. Given the proximity of the launch to the pre-trial conference, this may have been a preemptive move by Baldoni to circumvent any potential gag order. By publishing the information online, Baldoni may be attempting to solidify his narrative in the public eye and potentially undermine the basis for a gag order. Case Consolidation and Trial Date Set In a major update from New York, federal judge Lewis J. Liman has scheduled a trial date for March 9, 2026, marking the next chapter in this high-profile legal battle. The trial, which will address the complex claims of sexual harassment, defamation, and contract violations, is now set to proceed after Liman moved the initial conference from mid-February to next week. The court is also preparing for discussions on pretrial publicity and attorney conduct, with both sides expected to present concerns over the impact of public statements and potential jury bias. This adjustment follows a filing by Lively’s legal team, which alleges that Baldoni’s attorney is attempting to influence potential jurors. Specifically, Lively’s lawyers claim that Baldoni’s legal team has been actively working to harm Lively’s career by launching a website that selectively releases documents and communications between the two stars. According to Lively’s legal representatives, the goal of this strategy is to sway public opinion and turn prospective jurors against her before the trial even begins. As the New York case gains momentum, another legal front has emerged in Texas. Lively has filed a request in a Texas court to depose a man she claims played a central role in turning online sentiment against her during the film’s release and promotion. This new legal move adds further complexity to the already tangled web of lawsuits, as Lively seeks to identify and address those responsible for the negative publicity she alleges was orchestrated to damage her public image during the film's promotional campaign. As the legal battle intensifies on both coasts, all eyes will be on the actions of the court and the legal strategies of both Lively and Baldoni as they prepare for what promises to be a protracted and high-profile trial. The Legal Implications Moving Forward Judge Liman's January 27th decision to consolidate the Lively and Baldoni cases in the Southern District of New York marks a new, and potentially decisive, phase in their legal battle. This procedural move streamlines the trial process, focusing the complex factual and legal issues into a single proceeding, while simultaneously raising the stakes considerably for both parties. Consolidation not only avoids duplicative litigation but also presents a unified narrative to the court, forcing both sides to confront the totality of the allegations and defenses. While it remains to be seen whether Judge Liman will also consolidate Baldoni's separate, and arguably related, suit against the New York Times, the fact that the Times is now a defendant in the consolidated case suggests this is highly probable. This joinder could significantly broaden the scope of discovery and potentially introduce thorny First Amendment issues regarding journalistic privilege and fair report. The outcome of these lawsuits carries significant implications for the entertainment industry, potentially shaping the landscape of workplace conduct and media scrutiny. If Lively's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation are substantiated, particularly given the high-profile nature of the case, it could establish a crucial precedent for worker protections in Hollywood, especially for women navigating the pervasive power imbalances. This could embolden others to come forward and trigger a wave of policy changes regarding reporting and investigating harassment claims. Conversely, Baldoni's claims of defamation and tortious interference, if successful, could raise important questions about the often blurry line between personal and professional conduct on set, potentially chilling the willingness of individuals to report misconduct for fear of legal reprisal. This aspect of the litigation touches upon the delicate balance between free speech and reputational harm, an area of law ripe for development in the context of the #MeToo era. As the litigation unfolds, the entertainment industry will be watching closely. It will be interesting to see how the courts navigate these complex issues of proof and credibility, particularly regarding allegations of harassment and retaliation, which often rely on circumstantial evidence. The case also presents a fascinating interplay between traditional defamation law and the evolving standards for media reporting on sensitive matters, particularly in the context of ongoing investigations and public accusations. Furthermore, the potential long-term effects on industry dynamics, including the power of public opinion and social media pressure, are significant. Regardless of the outcome, this litigation is likely to leave a lasting mark on Hollywood and beyond.  [i] Wayfarer Studios LLC v. New York Times, 24STCV34662 (Ca. Sup. Ct. Dec. 31, 2024) [ii] Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, 1:24-cv-10049, (S.D.N.Y.) [iii] Wayfarer Studios LLC v. Lively, 1:25-cv-00449, (S.D.N.Y.)

February 4, 2025

Labor and Employment

Better Call Sarah: Political Speech in the Workplace

Dear Sarah, Help! After this last election, it seems everyone at the office has something to say about politics, and I’m caught between my mission to keep the peace and the very real risk of stifling free speech. Is there a way I can manage these heated political discussions without turning our office into a debate club or accidentally infringing on anyone's rights? Sincerely, Politically Puzzled in HR Dear Politically Puzzled in HR, Political discussions at work intersect with various labor and employment laws, including anti-discrimination regulations, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), state laws on mandatory meetings[1], and voting leave policies. Political conversations can also give rise to claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation under federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. By being mindful of both your right as an employer to set boundaries on political expression and employees’ rights in this area, you can comply with the law and maintain a positive workplace culture. Misconceptions About Free Speech in Private Workplaces Many people assume that the First Amendment guarantees unlimited free speech rights in all workplaces, but it actually applies mainly to government regulation, not to private employers. This means that, generally, private companies have broad discretion to manage political speech at work. However, federal laws like the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and anti-discrimination statutes create important limits on this authority. Protected Activities Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) The NLRA, for instance, protects employees—even in non-union settings—when they engage in “concerted activities” related to workplace conditions, such as discussions about pay or safety. If political discussions are directly related to these issues, they may also fall under protected activity. Employers should take care in addressing such conversations, especially as recent guidance from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) suggests that protected discussions may now include social justice or other political topics related to employee rights. Risks of Political Speech Leading to Discrimination Claims Even though political views themselves are generally not protected under anti-discrimination laws, discussions that touch on protected characteristics (e.g., race, gender, national origin) may lead to complaints of harassment or discrimination. For example, political debates on topics like immigration or reproductive rights could be seen as targeting certain groups, creating a hostile work environment. Employers should handle any related issues consistently and fairly to prevent claims of biased or discriminatory treatment. State and Local Laws Offering Additional Protections Additionally, some states have laws that prevent employers from disciplining or restricting employees based on their political affiliations, views, or party associations. In some cases, state protections extend beyond traditional political speech to cover social justice advocacy and other issues. Employers must also be aware that state and local laws often provide greater protections for employees than federal laws. For example, some states offer protections similar to First Amendment rights for private employees. Employers should also be familiar with the differences between federal EEO laws and state-level EEO regulations to ensure compliance. Developing Clear and Inclusive Policies Employers should develop clear, effective policies that align with legitimate business interests while minimizing ambiguity around what political activities and expressions are allowed. The policy must consider activities and communications protected under the NLRA as well as relevant state and local laws. To reduce the risk of discrimination, harassment, or bullying claims, employers may want to discourage supervisors from engaging in political discussions with subordinates, as supervisors are not protected by the NLRA. However, these policies must also be carefully crafted to comply with state-specific laws. Additionally, employers should consider implementing a social media policy to set clear expectations for online behavior. Political statements—especially on social media or in public spaces—can have a direct impact on your company’s reputation. Public backlash can arise if an employee, visibly linked to the organization, expresses controversial views. In today’s digital landscape, social media posts are just as influential as in-person comments, so it’s essential to handle online expression carefully. Many states protect employees’ privacy, meaning employers generally cannot demand access to personal social media accounts. If disciplinary action is needed, verify that any content was publicly accessible and relevant to workplace conduct to avoid legal risks. A policy on social media use, drafted in line with state and federal regulations, can help clarify expectations for how employees express their views online. Managing Off-Duty Conduct Employers should be mindful of employees’ rights to engage in political expression outside of work. In California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota, laws protect employees from adverse actions based on lawful political activities conducted outside of work hours. Employers should exercise caution when considering disciplinary actions for off-duty conduct to avoid violating state-specific protections. Fostering a Respectful and Inclusive Workplace Culture Addressing political speech in the workplace requires a careful balance. A comprehensive, consistently applied policy that values respect and inclusivity can help maintain a positive work environment while respecting employees’ rights. By fostering a respectful culture, employers can reduce potential conflicts and support a productive, harmonious workplace. In the current polarized climate, taking proactive steps to handle political speech thoughtfully can strengthen workplace morale and protect the company from legal risks, ensuring a fair, respectful environment for all.  [1]Mandatory employer-sponsored or so-called “captive audience” meetings are those an employer convenes during working hours to educate employees on certain topics, particularly the employer’s views on unionization. Although the NLRB has yet to issue a formal ruling on this issue, it is anticipated that the agency may take a strong stance against these types of meetings.

January 17, 2025

Labor and Employment

Better Call Sarah: Inappropriate Behavior at Office Parties - What You Need to Know

Mistletoe and Missteps: Ensuring a Safe and Fun Holiday Party Dear Sarah, I’m looking to keep our company’s annual holiday party lighthearted and fun and make sure it doesn't turn into a legal disaster (nobody wants a sexual harassment lawsuit under the mistletoe, right?). So, what's the best way to ensure our holiday festivities stay friendly and fun, without crossing any lines? And, just in case things do get out of hand, how should we handle any complaints or potential allegations of misconduct that may arise after the party? Cheers to no awkward lawsuits, The Mistletoe Monitor Inappropriate Behavior at Office Parties: What You Need to Know Dear Mistletoe Monitor, As much as the holiday party is a time for celebration, it's also a time when employer liability can become a concern.  When alcohol is involved, workplace boundaries can become blurred, increasing the risk of inappropriate behavior—whether under the mistletoe or at the office party in general—which could lead to serious legal consequences. So, what should you do if something goes awry? Here are a few steps to mitigate liability and protect your business if an issue arises. 1. Respond Promptly to the Complainant. If an employee comes forward with a complaint, act quickly. Start by talking to the employee and assuring them that the complaint will be investigated thoroughly. Document all conversations and begin your investigation right away. This demonstrates that you take such matters seriously and are committed to creating a safe workplace. 2. Consider Having an Attorney Direct the Investigation. One option is to bring in legal counsel—either in-house or external—to guide the investigation. Having an attorney involved ensures that the process is handled appropriately and can help protect communications under attorney-client privilege. This is particularly important when dealing with sensitive situations that could lead to legal exposure. If you're unsure about the process or legal ramifications, consulting with an attorney early on is always a good idea. 3. Consider Protective Measures Pending the Investigation. Depending on the nature of the complaint and the circumstances, you may need to take interim actions. This could include modifying work assignments, adjusting schedules, or even placing the alleged harasser on leave. The goal is to maintain a safe environment while the investigation is ongoing. For example, if the situation involves two employees from different departments, you could temporarily change their work assignments to prevent further interaction until the investigation is completed. 4. Tailor the Response to the Situation. Remember that each case is unique, and your response should be proportional to the situation at hand. For serious allegations, you may need to take more immediate action, including suspensions or temporary leave for the accused party. Always consult with legal counsel to determine the most appropriate course of action based on the facts. 5. Keep the Event Safe and Enjoyable. Of course, the goal is to prevent these situations from occurring in the first place. You can minimize the risk of harassment claims by being proactive, setting clear expectations, and monitoring the party. Have policies in place to promote respectful behavior and remind employees that although they are at a social event, they still represent the company. If someone gets out of hand, don't hesitate to step in to prevent further issues. Your office holiday party should be a time for celebration, but it’s important to be prepared in case something goes wrong. By following these best practices, setting clear expectations, and consulting legal counsel, when necessary, you can reduce the chances of a party mishap turning into a legal nightmare. Happy holidays (with boundaries!).

December 17, 2024

Labor and Employment

Better Call Sarah: Reducing Liability While Hosting a Holiday Event

Dear Sarah,  Planning our holiday party and I’m a little ‘shaken’  with concern—what are my liabilities if employees overindulge? Am I responsible if someone gets hurt, causes a scene, or drinks and drives? Should I be worried about potential legal fallout, or is it on them to know when to stop? How can I keep the fun flowing without the liability risk? Cheers (responsibly), HR in a Holidaze Dear HR in a Holidaze, While employees are generally responsible for their own actions, as an employer, you still have a duty to provide a safe environment and take reasonable steps to manage risks. Even without alcohol, social gatherings can lead to issues such as bullying, sexual harassment, other misconduct, and accidents and injuries. If alcohol is provided at your holiday party, however, you could be held liable if an employee’s intoxication leads to injury, damage, or misconduct, particularly if it occurs during or shortly after the event. For example, an impaired employee causing a workplace accident or an incident of harassment could result in legal exposure for the company. Additionally, employers need to be aware that providing alcohol brings with it legal liability—similar to what your local tavern owner faces. Courts have frequently held event sponsors responsible for tragedies involving impaired individuals, particularly when those individuals are involved in accidents. The entity providing the alcohol takes on some risk for the individual’s actions while intoxicated, including the possibility that alcohol may end up in the hands of minors. While it’s impossible to eliminate all risk, there are best practices employers can follow to reduce liability at holiday events. These aren’t meant to be a buzzkill but are steps to ensure that your event is safe and fun while limiting legal exposure. Consider Not Providing Alcohol at All: One viable risk management option is to simply avoid alcohol at company functions. While some employees might miss out on the drinks, offering gifts or prizes instead can offset this.  Especially in events where children are present, excluding alcohol can prevent minors from gaining access and create a more relaxed, enjoyable atmosphere for everyone. Provide Plenty of Non-Alcoholic Options: straightforward and effective way to manage risk is by providing a variety of non-alcoholic beverages. Avoid putting your employees in a situation where their only options are alcoholic drinks. Offer a selection of sodas, iced tea, lemonade, sparkling water, and even a signature mocktail to encourage moderation and create an inclusive atmosphere for everyone. Use a Professional Caterer or Bartender: For more formal or elaborate events, consider using a third-party vendor to manage alcohol service. Professional servers are trained to identify intoxicated individuals and can limit consumption. If you go this route, make sure to carefully review the vendor contract, request liability insurance, and consider a “hold harmless” agreement to protect your business. Plan for Safe Transportation: One of the most important considerations is ensuring safe transportation home for employees who may overindulge. Consider arranging taxis, ride-sharing, or designated drivers to help those who may not be in condition to drive. It’s also helpful to have key members of management refrain from drinking and monitor the event to spot potential problems early. Set Clear Expectations for Behavior: Let employees know that, although alcohol is provided, they’re expected to act professionally. Remind everyone that they are still representatives of the company at the event, and inappropriate behavior won’t be tolerated. Make it clear that if someone’s actions put others at risk (such as driving while intoxicated), the company will take steps to ensure their safety—including potentially involving law enforcement if necessary. Limit Alcohol Consumption: Consider implementing a drink ticket system to limit the amount of alcohol each attendee can consume. A couple of drinks per person are generally sufficient for a fun evening. This can help prevent overindulgence and manage the alcohol flow in a controlled manner. By implementing these precautions, you can significantly reduce the chances of liability while hosting a fun and safe holiday event. Consulting with legal counsel to ensure your event policies are solid and well-documented is also a smart move. Ultimately, the goal is to create an enjoyable and memorable event without putting the company at risk. So, to answer your question: yes, employers can be held responsible for incidents that occur during or as a result of company-sponsored events. However, with proper planning, clear communication, and safety measures in place, HR can minimize the risks while still fostering a festive and inclusive environment.

December 10, 2024

Labor and Employment

State of the Union – Artificial Intelligence

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, overruling the Chevron doctrine[1] which required courts to observe regulatory agency interpretation of statutory law. In Loper Bright, the Court ruled that judges cannot defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law merely because it is deemed “reasonable.” The decision cautioned courts against relying on agencies' claims of authority based on their “subject matter expertise” or their role in political “policymaking.” Instead, federal judges are required to exercise “independent judgment” and interpret statutes based on their "best meaning." This standard makes judges more skeptical of agency interpretations, particularly when those interpretations are inconsistent. While judges may consider agency guidance if it is persuasive, longstanding, and consistent, such guidance is not legally binding. In the dissent of Loper Bright, Justice Elena Kagan noted that artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to be “the next big piece of legislation on the horizon.” She emphasized the challenges Congress faces in regulating the technical area of AI, stating that “Congress can hardly see a week in the future with respect to this subject, let alone a year or a decade.” As Congress endeavors to legislate AI in the wake of Loper Bright, it will have to be specific in what power will belong to agencies to regulate AI. In turn, agencies will have less flexibility in creating and enforcing AI regulations unless power is specifically delegated to them in AI legislation.  The rapidly expanding landscape of federal and state legislation and regulation in the AI space is already creating compliance challenges for employers. Given the fast-paced evolution of AI technology, regulatory flexibility is essential. In the wake of Loper Bright, while legal compliance remains a priority, employers will find it easier to challenge agency rules—especially if those rules deviate from the statutory text or shift unpredictably with changes in administration. Akin to the recent legislation passed by the state of Colorado,[2] before Congress enacts comprehensive AI federal legislation, local and state governments will have the opportunity to pass AI regulation specific to for their constituents. However, without a greater federal regulatory scheme expressing a goal of uniformity, this could lead to divergent AI judicial decisions. In recent years, and in the absence of congressional legislation on artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) have announced various initiatives to restrict the use of AI in the workplace. The possibility of differing interpretations between state and federal courts raises significant concerns about the future of AI regulation in the United States. Employers operating across multiple states may encounter conflicting requirements, adding complexity to an already challenging compliance landscape. Additionally, employers could face varying legal standards when individuals seek redress for alleged AI-related harms, depending on whether the case is heard in state or federal court. Consequently, the legal landscape for AI is poised to become fragmented and complex. The wheels of justice may also turn too slow to keep up with AI’s fast evolving pace. Greater reliance on courts to determine the appropriate usage of AI could place users of AI at an increased risk for litigation. To minimize potential liability, AI users should implement an AI governance system. Such a system will determine how the AI used, its limitations, risks and provide guidance on best practices. Having advanced knowledge of an AI system's potential pitfalls will provide a business with a tactical advantage to avoid unnecessary litigation while still leveraging the benefits of the AI technology. Legal strategies will need to be tailored to the specific jurisdiction in question, and companies may need to implement more robust compliance measures to account for the varying standards that will emerge. [1] Chevron established a two-step analysis for judicial review of statutory interpretation.  Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under Chevron, if a court concluded that a statute was silent or ambiguous, it had to defer to an agency’s permissible construction of the statute. The Loper Bright decision is premised on what the majority believes is a plain text reading of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs judicial challenges to agency actions. The Court specifically determined that the APA, which was not considered in Chevron, reflects the traditional understanding of the judiciary's role. This role requires courts to independently interpret the meaning of laws.  [2] Colorado’s newly enacted AI law aims to establish comprehensive regulations governing AI use, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and fairness. The law requires companies to conduct impact assessments and implement safeguards to mitigate bias and discrimination in AI systems, with compliance required by February 1, 2026.

November 22, 2024

Labor and Employment

Better Call Sarah: Workplace DEI

Dear Sarah, I’ve been reflecting on how best to promote diversity and inclusion in my workplace. With year-end reviews and the holidays around the corner, I want to make sure that our DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives are truly making a difference. There’s also the looming concern of the potential rollback of education-based affirmative action policies and DEI programs under the upcoming Trump administration. With these shifts on the horizon, many in corporate America are wondering how to adapt and continue fostering inclusivity in their organizations. What strategies can I implement to ensure my team remains inclusive, diverse, and equitable in an evolving political and corporate landscape? - Inclusive Innovator Dear Inclusive Innovator, Thank you for your insightful question! November is a great time for you to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), especially as the holiday season approaches and often highlights cultural diversity. Fostering an inclusive workplace can enhance employee morale while driving innovation and productivity. Corporate DEI policies are facing increased scrutiny and legal challenges, even as the U.S. workforce becomes more diverse. As diversity continues to grow in both familiar and unexpected ways, DEI programs will be crucial for organizations looking to thrive in this evolving environment. While DEI programs will vary based on each organization’s unique goals, effective programs often share key elements: Make Anti-Discrimination Central to Your DEI Policy: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Challenges to DEI programs frequently arise from claims of discrimination against protected groups. To prevent misinterpretations that could create perceptions of favoritism—and thus undermine your program’s effectiveness—ensure that strong non-discrimination principles are integral to your DEI policies. Legally, employers cannot favor specific races, genders, or religions in hiring and promotion. Evaluate whether your DEI initiatives truly foster an inclusive culture that values all employees and promotes an equitable playing field. A compliant DEI program can expand the talent pool for jobs and promotions by proactively engaging with diverse communities. Align DEI Goals with Your Organizational Mission and Culture: Before developing a DEI program, consider your organization’s identity. Understanding your mission, audience, operational methods, and regulatory context will help frame how DEI supports broader goals rather than appearing as an afterthought. Analyze Your Current and Future Workforce Composition: Root your DEI program in your current workforce. Understand individual and team dynamics to make informed decisions about future enhancements. While demographic statistics can offer insights, approach them carefully to avoid oversimplification. Instead of giving "preference" to specific groups, adopt identity-neutral DEI strategies that eliminate bias. These strategies can include structured recruitment and promotion processes with clear, transparent, merit-based criteria; removing biased language from evaluations; and applying employee benefits equitably. Clearly Define “Diversity”: Specify the aspects of diversity your DEI policy aims to address and why. In a compliant DEI program, a true commitment to non-discrimination in a diverse workforce should naturally lead to greater diversity within your organization. Clarify “Equity” and “Inclusion” Definitions: These terms can be broad and sometimes contradictory. Equity doesn’t mean identical outcomes for everyone but rather tailored support that enhances each employee’s chances for success. Inclusion means ensuring that all employees can thrive, fostering teamwork that appreciates diversity. Build a DEI program that encourages a more inclusive workplace culture without directly affecting individual employment benefits. Review Training Materials for Alignment with Your Organizational Values: DEI training materials vary widely in quality. Be cautious about training that could conflict with state laws, particularly in states where DEI-related legislation is being challenged. Given the current climate surrounding DEI, some organizations may hesitate to pursue these programs. However, as society and the workforce continue to diversify, it’s essential to adapt. Rather than retreat, consider this an opportunity to develop DEI programs that resonate with the needs of an evolving society.

November 21, 2024

Labor and Employment

Better Call Sarah: Mental Health in the Workplace

Dear Sarah, With October being Mental Health Awareness Month, I’m concerned about how we can better support our employees’ mental well-being at work. We’ve been hearing a lot about the importance of mental health, but as a small business owner, I’m unsure how to implement effective strategies. What can I do to create a more supportive environment? – Mindful in Marketing Dear Mindful in Marketing, Thank you for your thoughtful question! Mental health in the workplace is an increasingly relevant issue, especially during October, when awareness campaigns are in full swing. Supporting your employees’ mental well-being is more than a compassionate choice – it is a smart business strategy that can lead to increased productivity and lower turnover rates. You also need to comply with the law. If an employee’s mental health condition qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), you are required to provide reasonable accommodations. Conditions like major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia meet this definition, while others such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression may also qualify. Mental health conditions may also trigger protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) [1]. It's important to be aware of these legal frameworks to protect both your employees and your business. It’s also especially important for businesses to comply with these laws, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has emphasized its focus on protecting workers with mental health-related disabilities in its most recent Strategic Enforcement Plan. Fortunately, you can take proactive steps to support mental wellness in the workplace to support your employees and help protect your business from potential discrimination claims. Mental Health Policies and Procedures Employers should be prepared with the proper policies and procedures in place to address employee mental health concerns. Draft and Communicate a Mental Health Policy Create a clear mental health policy that outlines your commitment to employee well-being. Include resources available, such as Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) and mental health days. Make sure this policy is easily accessible and communicated to all employees. Manager Training and Education Train managers and supervisors on their legal obligations under the ADA, FMLA, and related laws. This should include knowing how and when to involve HR. It’s also wise to designate HR professionals to handle leave requests and accommodation issues promptly and consistently. Engage in the Interactive Process If an employee approaches HR with a mental health-related issue that qualifies as a disability, employers must engage in the “interactive process.” This dialogue between employer and employee is aimed at finding reasonable accommodations that allow the employee to perform their job. Common accommodations to address mental health issues are extended leave, scheduling changes, and additional breaks. You need to listen to the employee and the employee’s healthcare provider. Always remember that this is an interactive process, so it may take several steps. Be patient and creative. Reduce Mental Health Stigma Historically, employers avoided discussing mental health with their employees. Even today, employers may feel uncomfortable bringing it up because they don’t know the “right” words or worry they might overstep. But it’s important to talk about. Employees who feel supported and who have receptive supervisors may be less likely to have a sudden need for an ADA accommodation. They are also less likely to file an EEOC charge. Check On Your Employees Regular check-ins with employees—whether through one-on-one meetings or anonymous surveys—can help you gauge how employees are feeling. When employees feel supported, they are more likely to seek help early, which can reduce the need for more formal ADA accommodations later on. Offer Mental Health Trainings Consider organizing workshops or inviting mental health professionals to provide guidance on recognizing the signs of mental health struggles and how to support colleagues. Train managers to approach sensitive conversations with empathy and understanding. Lead by Example As a business leader, it’s important to model healthy behaviors. Share your own strategies for managing stress and openly discuss the importance of mental health. When employees see leadership prioritizing well-being, they feel empowered to do the same. Create A Work Environment That Promotes Mental Well-Being Building a culture that supports mental health involves more than just offering workshops—it requires integrating mental well-being into everyday work practices. Flexibility, balance, and proper resources are straightforward ways employers can build a work environment that supports employees’ mental health. Flexibility Mental health can fluctuate over time, and offering flexibility—whether through adjustable workloads, flexible deadlines, or remote work options—can help employees manage stress during tough times. Encourage employees to communicate their needs and be open to adjustments as necessary. Work-Life Balance Promote a healthy work-life balance by encouraging employees to take regular breaks, use their vacation time, and, if possible, offering flexible work schedules. Employees who feel that their personal time is respected are more likely to be productive and less likely to experience burnout. Adequate Staffing and Resources Employers can reduce unnecessary stress by ensuring employees have access to the tools and resources they need to do their jobs effectively. This includes providing up-to-date technology, clear processes, and adequate staffing levels so employees aren’t overburdened. When employees have what they need to perform their tasks efficiently, they experience less frustration and can focus on their work without additional stress. Regularly assess whether your team has the proper support, equipment, and training, and address any gaps promptly to maintain a healthy and productive work environment. Incorporating mental health support into your workplace culture is a powerful investment in your business’s future. These strategies can ensure legal compliance while also fostering a positive, healthy work environment. Prioritizing employee well-being will reduce stress, improve productivity, and create an atmosphere where your team can thrive.  [1] The U.S. Department of Labor published “Fact Sheet #280: Mental Health Conditions and the FMLA” in May 2022, to explain leave eligibility under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for use related to an employee’s own mental health condition or that of an immediate family member. Additionally, the FMLA’s definition of a serious health condition can be broader than the definition of a disability and encompass many illnesses, injuries, and physical or mental conditions that require multiple treatments and intermittent absences. State leave and disability laws can provide greater amounts of leave and/or benefits to employees, including those who may not be covered by the ADA or FMLA.

October 30, 2024

FTC Non-Compete Rule

Texas Court Blocks Enforcement of FTC Non-Compete Ban

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will not be able to enforce its proposed rule banning non-competes per the latest ruling from a federal district court in Texas.   What does this mean for businesses?   For now, it’s business as usual. Companies can continue using non-compete agreements with their employees, provided they comply with applicable state and local laws.   Best practices regarding non-compete agreements Companies should still exercise caution, however. The FTC may appeal the Ryan decision or there could be other legal or regulatory changes that could impact the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Future legislation or regulatory reform around the use of employee non-competes may be especially likely, given the recent and widely publicized scrutiny. Employers should review their existing non-compete agreements with employment counsel to ensure they comply with current laws and regulations in the states in which they operate and have employees. Attorneys experienced with non-competes and other restrictive covenants can provide you with valuable insights and alternative strategies to protect your interests. Being prepared to adapt your policies in response to any changes will help safeguard your business.  Background Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 3:24-cv-00986, (N.D. Tex.) was one of several lawsuits filed to challenge the FTC’s proposed rule banning non-competes. This rule, set to take effect September 4, 2024, would have banned the use of future non-compete agreements and nullified most existing ones. In a victory for employers, U.S. District Judge Ada Brown for the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling in the Ryan case on August 20, 2024, blocking the FTC from enforcing its proposed non-compete rule.

August 21, 2024

Labor and Employment

Navigating the FTC’s New Non-Compete Rule: Steps to Prepare by September 4, 2024

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a new rule (FTC Rule) that invalidates most existing non-compete agreements for employees at for-profit businesses, except for those agreements for "senior executives" signed before September 4, 2024 (Effective Date). This FTC Rule fundamentally alters the longstanding practice of using non-compete clauses to safeguard an employer's interests. Overview of the FTC’s New Non-Compete Rule and Its Implications Under the new rule, non-compete agreements will only remain enforceable for senior executives—defined as those earning more than $151,164 annually and holding significant policy-making roles, such as president or CEO—and will remain enforceable if signed before the Effective Date. After September 4, 2024, employers will be prohibited from imposing non-compete agreements on new hires, even if they are senior executives. Employers are also required to inform both current and former employees bound by non-compete agreements that these agreements will not be enforced. The FTC has provided model language for this notice, available on its website in multiple languages. Employers should use this notice carefully and avoid issuing it to senior executives who the FTC Rule does not impact. Key points to consider: The term “worker” is broadly defined and includes employees, independent contractors, interns, volunteers, apprentices, and even sole proprietors. The FTC’s jurisdiction generally does not cover non-profit organizations, banks, savings and loan institutions, federal credit unions, common carriers, and air carriers, so the rule may not apply to these sectors. The rule does not address non-compete agreements that prevent employees from soliciting customers or other employees unless these agreements are overly broad and interfere with a worker’s ability to seek or accept new employment. Agreements designed to protect trade secrets and confidential information, such as non-disclosure agreements, remain enforceable. The FTC Rule does not apply to non-compete agreements related to the bona fide sale of a business entity and does not affect any pending enforcement actions pertaining to non-competes established before the Effective Date. The rule applies to post-employment non-compete agreements and does not impact agreements that limit competitive activities during employment. The FTC Rule overrides conflicting state laws but does not supersede state laws that provide greater protections, such as California’s comprehensive ban on non-competes for all employees, including senior executives. Current Legal Challenges to the FTC Rule It is no surprise that several federal lawsuits have been filed to challenge the enforcement of the FTC Rule. In one case, ATS Tree Services, LLC v. FTC, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their claims against the FTC and denied their request for a preliminary injunction to halt the rule’s enforcement. Consequently, it is reasonable to anticipate that the ATS court may ultimately support the FTC’s position. In contrast, in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a limited preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of the FTC Rule against the plaintiffs and intervenors involved in that case. The Ryan court is expected to decide by August 30, 2024, whether to grant a nationwide permanent injunction, just before the FTC Rule is set to take effect. Additionally, on June 21, 2024, Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission was filed in the Middle District of Florida before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. The plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction against the FTC Rule as it applies to them and an order to vacate it entirely under the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Corrigan is scheduled to hear arguments on the motion for a preliminary injunction on August 14, 2024. Recommended Action for Businesses Before the FTC Rule Takes Effect Businesses should be prepared to act by the Effective Date. Despite ongoing litigation challenging the FTC Rule, no nationwide injunction has been issued, so employers should proactively: Strengthen other restrictive covenants (e.g., non-solicitation clauses) and develop strategies to address potential risks associated with the rule. Consider how the rule might impact valuations in mergers or acquisitions due to the potential for increased competition. (Note that the FTC Rule does not apply to non-compete clauses related to the bona fide sale of a business, a person's ownership interest in a business, or substantially all of a business's operating assets.) Evaluate options for updating or introducing agreements for senior executives before the Effective Date. Review and analyze the impact of the FTC Rule on existing non-compete agreements. Plan for issuing the required notices to affected employees and former employees. Offit Kurman has a dedicated practice group focused on issues related to employee mobility, including restrictive covenants and trade secrets. Our attorneys are uniquely positioned to guide you through these challenges, helping you weigh the risks specific to your business and make informed decisions that align with your business objectives. The information contained in this document is intended for informational purposes only. It should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. In some states, this is considered advertising.

August 13, 2024

Labor and Employment

Federal Court Denies ATS Tree Services' Bid to Delay FTC Rule Implementation

On July 23, 2024, U.S. District Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge, serving the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rejected ATS Tree Services LLC’s request to delay the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule, set to take effect on September 4, 2024. ATS also sought a preliminary injunction against the rule. Still, Judge Hodge also denied this request, concluding that ATS had not shown that the rule would cause irreparable harm or that it could establish a likelihood of success on the merits. This decision followed shortly after U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC from enforcing the rule against Ryan, LLC, a tax preparation company, and certain intervenors. Judge Hodge’s denial of ATS's motion was based on a determination that ATS had failed to prove it would suffer irreparable harm because of the rule. The court found that ATS’s claims of irreparable harm—such as nonrecoverable compliance costs and the potential loss of contractual benefits— were based upon either a choice or a “speculative risk,” which did not rise to the level of irreparable and immediate harm required for an injunction. The court cited Third Circuit precedent, stating that nonrecoverable compliance costs, such as monetary losses or business expenses, do not constitute irreparable and immediate harm required for an injunction. Additionally, the court held that ATS offered no binding precedent to support its argument that the loss of contractual rights is an irreparable harm, reiterating that such determinations must be on a case-by-case basis. Even if ATS could establish irreparable harm, the court found that it had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Judge Hodge’s opinion included a detailed analysis of the FTC’s authority to issue substantive rules regarding unfair methods of competition. The court confirmed that the FTC has such authority, noting that Section 6 of the FTC Act does not limit the FTC to procedural rules alone. The use of the term "prevent" in Section 5 of the Act supports the FTC's ability to make rules to prevent harm before it occurs rather than merely remedying it. The court also referenced prior circuit court decisions and Congressional actions, such as the Magnuson-Moss Act, which affirmed the FTC’s rulemaking authority. The court also addressed ATS’s other challenges to the rule. It upheld the FTC’s authority to broadly regulate non-compete clauses as unfair methods of competition, rejected claims that regulation of non-competes is solely a state matter, and found that the Major Questions Doctrine does not apply to the rule. Additionally, the court dismissed ATS’s nondelegation challenge, affirming that Congress had provided a clear guiding principle for the FTC’s rulemaking authority under the FTC Act. Given these findings, the court did not need to evaluate the balance of equities or public interest considerations. This ruling is significant for several reasons. It contrasts with the earlier decision in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, where Judge Brown granted a preliminary injunction, suggesting the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits. The Texas court has indicated it will decide on the enforceability of the FTC rule by August 30, 2024. While Judge Hodge’s decision represents a victory for the FTC, it may be temporary. The Texas court’s preliminary injunction in Ryan LLC hinted at potential future invalidation of the rule based on arguments that the FTC lacked statutory authority or that the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). If the Texas court rules against the FTC, it might vacate the rule entirely or issue a permanent injunction, though the specifics are yet to be determined. In the meantime, businesses should continue to assess and document their use of non-competes and explore alternative protections like non-disclosure agreements, invention protection, non-solicits, training repayment programs, garden leaves, and non-competes related to business sales. The FTC’s guidance suggests that if properly structured, these alternatives should comply with the new rule. Additionally, state legislation and actions by other federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), may further influence the legal landscape regarding non-competes.

August 7, 2024

Business

Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Deference in Landmark Loper Bright Decision

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. As expected, following oral argument, the Court overruled the Chevron deference doctrine in a 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The doctrine stems from a 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), establishing a two-step analysis for judicial review of statutory interpretation. Under Chevron, if a court concluded that a statute was silent or ambiguous, it had to defer to an agency’s permissible construction of the statute. Now, under Loper Bright, courts must “exercise their independent judgment” and “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” Supreme Court Review: Chevron Doctrine's Applicability to Cases Post-Loper Bright In Loper Bright, two sets of fishing companies challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service requiring vessels operating in the Atlantic herring market to pay for a government-certified observer during their fishing trips. Applying Chevron, the district court in each case rejected the companies’ challenge to the observer rule and granted summary judgment to the government. Panels of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and First Circuit affirmed these decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases on the limited question of whether Chevron should be overruled or clarified. Supreme Court's Interpretation of APA in Loper Bright The Loper Bright decision is premised on what the majority believes is a plain text reading of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs judicial challenges to agency actions. The Court specifically determined that the APA, which was not considered in Chevron, reflects the traditional understanding of the judiciary's role. This role requires courts to independently interpret the meaning of laws. The Court dismissed the notion of a “presumption” of agency expertise, explaining that resolving unclear laws falls within the court’s jurisdiction, not the agencies. Put another way, while courts may use an agency’s interpretation to help “inform their inquiry,” they cannot dictate how courts interpret the law. The Loper Bright Court also rejected the idea that Chevron promotes consistency, highlighting inconsistencies in its application. Furthermore, it concluded that adherence to Chevron is not mandated by stare decisis. Chevron had proven “unworkable” because determining whether a statute is ambiguous is an indeterminate exercise. Consequently, the Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s decisions. Supreme Court Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts and the Majority Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.

July 12, 2024

Labor and Employment

Texas Court Blocks FTC Non-Compete Rule: What It Means for Businesses

On July 3, 2024, a federal district court in Texas took a significant step, temporarily blocking the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) proposed rule banning non-competes. U.S. District Judge Ada Brown for the Northern District of Texas granted the motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Ryan LLC and plaintiff-intervenors U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, Texas Association of Business, and Longview Chamber of Commerce, effectively putting the FTC’s rule on hold for the named plaintiffs. Although the stay is temporary pending the court’s final decision on the merits of the case and applies only to the movants, it signals that a permanent and nationwide injunction is likely. Background on the FTC's Non-Compete Rule As a quick refresher, in April 2024, the FTC narrowly passed a rule along party lines intended to ban future non-compete agreements and nullify most existing ones. The FTC asserted its authority to enact this rule under Section 6(g) of the FTC Act, claiming it grants the power to establish substantive rules against unfair competition. Set to take effect on September 4, 2024, the rule would prohibit all new employment-related non-competes and invalidate nearly all existing ones. Ryan LLC and others immediately challenged the rule in court on various grounds. Judge Ada Brown's Ruling on the FTC Rule Judge Ada Brown, a former President Trump appointee, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that they successfully demonstrated all the necessary criteria for a preliminary injunction: (i) a strong likelihood of winning the case; (ii) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction wasn't granted; and (iii) a favorable balance of the potential harms and benefits to both parties. Judge Brown’s opinion focused on two key points: The Scope of the FTC’s Authority: The court’s determination that the FTC lacked statutory authority to enact the rule is significant, particularly considering its alignment with the "major questions" doctrine. Historically, the FTC has disclaimed such power, but Congress has not expressly granted it. The court's reasoning aligns with the recent trend of limiting agencies' authority, echoing concerns in the "major questions" doctrine. Whether the Rule is Arbitrary and Capricious: Judge Brown ruled that the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) due to its overbroad nature and lack of supporting evidence. The opinion noted that no state has enacted a ban as broad as the one proposed by the FTC, and the FTC failed to justify its sweeping approach or consider less disruptive alternatives. Additionally, the court agreed that the rule would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' businesses and that the balance of equities favored maintaining the status quo. Current Status and Potential Developments of the FTC Rule While the injunction only applies to Ryan LLC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (and not its members), no entities will be subject to enforcement before the rule's intended effective date of September 4, 2024. Additionally, Judge Brown indicated that she intends to issue a final ruling by August 30, 2024, which could invalidate or permanently enjoin the rule. In the interim, the parties will further brief the merits issues and the narrow scope of the court’s order, including whether the injunction should be expanded nationwide. A separate challenge brought by ATS Tree Services LLC is pending in Pennsylvania, with a hearing scheduled for July 10, 2024, potentially resulting in a nationwide injunction 1. This underscores the potential nationwide impact of the ongoing legal proceedings. Impact on FTC's Rulemaking Authority This ruling is a significant setback to the FTC's agenda to expand its rulemaking authority and regulate labor markets. It reflects a broader trend of constraining administrative agencies following the Supreme Court's recent decision (issued June 28, 2024) in Loper Bright Enterprises. In Loper Bright, the court overruled Chevron’s deference. It concluded that courts must interpret statutes de novo, and agency interpretations are not entitled to deference. The court found that even where a statute is “ambiguous,” there is a single “best reading” of the statute that courts, not agencies, are responsible for determining. Previously, courts often deferred to agencies under the Chevron doctrine if their interpretation of an ambiguous law was reasonable. However, Loper mandates that courts independently assess whether an agency acted within its authority, regardless of statutory ambiguity. This means the Ryan court's final decision will heavily depend on its own interpretation of the FTC's statutory power. Given this new precedent, it is plausible to expect the FTC's rule may be overturned, at least in part. The business community, which has strongly opposed the rule, likely sees this as a positive sign. However, state-level efforts to limit non-competes continue, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the view that the proffer, maintenance, and enforcement of non-competes generally violate the National Labor Relations Act 2. Proactive Review of Non-Competes: Alternative Strategies Businesses are advised to proactively review their use of non-competes across their organization and explore alternative strategies to safeguard their interests. These alternatives include: Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Intellectual Property Protection Non-solicitation agreements Training Reimbursement Programs Garden Leave Clauses Non-Competes Linked to Business Sales The FTC has indicated that, when properly structured, these alternatives should not violate its proposed rule. _____________________________________________ 1 ATS Tree Services, LLC v. FTC, No. 2:24-cv-1743 (E.D. Pa. 2024). 2 On June 13, 2024, an administrative law judge for the NLRB held that certain non-compete and non-solicit covenants violated an employee’s labor rights under the NLRA. See J.O. Mory, Inc., 25-CA-309577, 25-CA-336995, JD-36-24 (2024).

July 10, 2024

Labor and Employment

FTC's Final Rule: Understanding the Ban on Non-Compete Clauses

On April 23, 2024, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its final rule on non-competition clauses, voting 3-2 to adopt the final regulations, known as the “Non-Compete Clause Rule.” This rule marks a significant milestone, establishing a comprehensive ban on non-compete agreements. The decision comes fifteen months after the FTC released its proposed rule in January 2023. The final rule will not take effect until 120 days after publication in the Federal Register, and lawsuits have already been brought challenging the authority of the FTC to issue such a broad rule. Nonetheless, it is crucial for employers to understand the broad requirements, the exceptions, and how to protect legitimate business interests in the wake of the FTC’s rule.   The rule applies to all businesses and individuals within the FTC’s jurisdiction, which covers all types of companies in nearly all industries. However, certain entities fall outside the FTC’s jurisdiction and, therefore, are exempt from the ban. These include banks, savings and loan institutions, federal credit unions, common carriers, air carriers, and certain non-profits. The rule restricts businesses and individuals from including non-competition language in future employment agreements, policies, handbooks, or websites for their workers. Additionally, it extends to non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements that function as de facto non-competition agreements. Importantly, this prohibition applies to all workers (not just “employees”), including independent contractors, interns, externs, volunteers, apprentices, and others. According to the rule’s preamble, “it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of section 5—for employers to, inter alia, enter into non-compete clauses with workers on or after the final rule’s effective date.” Once the rule takes effect, agreements and policies containing non-compete language will become unenforceable, with the only exception being for “Senior Executives.” The rule defines “Senior Executives” as a worker earning more than $151,164 annually and holding a “policy-making position.” Compensation can include salary, commissions, performance bonuses, and any other agreed-upon forms of compensation, excluding benefits or board and lodging. If the individual only worked part of the year, their earned compensation can be annualized to determine whether they meet the threshold. Policy-making positions include the president, CEO, or individuals with authority to make company-wide policy decisions. While “Senior Executives” will not have their non-competes retroactively voided like other workers, the rule prohibits covered businesses and individuals from entering into such agreements with future workers, even if they qualify as “Senior Executives.” Once in effect, the rule will also require businesses and individuals to notify workers of the ban and rescind existing non-competes (except those with senior executives). Model language for an appropriate notice can be accessed at Noncompete Rule | Federal Trade Commission (ftc.gov). Consequently, the bulk of existing restrictions will become unenforceable upon the rule’s enactment. The FTC anticipates the rule will increase employee earnings by at least $400 billion over the next decade. While the rule fundamentally prohibits all non-compete agreements between businesses and their workers, exceptions exist for non-competes between businesses and between the seller and buyer of a company. Specifically, the FTC’s rule prohibits anything that restricts, penalizes, or prevents a worker from pursuing a different job or starting a business after leaving their current job. That includes: Prohibitive terms and conditions expressly saying that a worker cannot get another job, such as with a competitor or embark on a business venture; Terms and conditions mandating financial penalties for workers who get another job or start a business; or Terms and conditions that aren’t labeled as non-competes but are so restrictive that they effectively prevent a worker from getting a new job or starting a business. This may include overly broad confidentiality clauses, which could potentially violate the National Labor Relations Act, Employers are advised to seek guidance from experienced employment counsel to ensure compliance. As noted at the outset, given the extremely broad nature of the rule, legal challenges are anticipated, potentially leading to further delays or permanently preventing the rule’s enactment. We will continue monitoring developments and providing updates accordingly. In the meantime, employers are encouraged to take advantage of this period by: Evaluating and analyzing existing agreements to ensure certain protections are in place in anticipation of the rule’s implementation; and Consulting with trusted legal counsel to devise a communication strategy regarding the notice requirement for impacted workers, ensuring effectiveness and compliance with legal standards. If you have any questions or need assistance with navigating these changes, please reach out to Gabriel Celii and Sarah Goodman

April 25, 2024

Ask Sarah: Navigating Sexual Harassment Complaints- Best Practices for Employers

Dear Sarah, I’ve recently been informed about a troubling situation involving ongoing sexual harassment within our organization. It appears that this behavior has occurred for several months, yet this is the first time it has been brought to my attention. The incidents range from inappropriate actions in the office to unwelcome advances at company-sponsored events and unsolicited messages outside of working hours. This is a serious issue that requires immediate attention. What should my organization do in response to this complaint? Can we really be liable for behaviors outside the workplace, such as at a bar? — HR Rep Unsure of How to Handle Sexual Harassment Investigations in the Wake of the #MeToo movement Good to hear from you, though I’m sorry it is under these circumstances. Conducting a thorough workplace investigation is paramount here. These are serious allegations; employees expect accountability, and the employer is responsible for ensuring a fair and transparent process. Regarding your question about liability for incidents outside of the workplace, such as those occurring at a bar, it's essential to understand that sexual harassment is by no means confined to the workplace. Put another way, it is not required for the harasser to be in the process of rendering his or her job duties at the time the harassment takes place; as long as an employment relationship exists at the time of the conduct, the employer may be liable. While the situation may seem complex, addressing all instances of harassment, regardless of where they occur, is imperative to avoid legal consequences. Failure to do so could leave the organization vulnerable to legal consequences. Below, I've outlined key steps for conducting a comprehensive investigation. Conduct Timely Investigations: Addressing workplace issues and complaints promptly is essential. Offering multiple reporting avenues to ensure the complainant feels comfortable coming forward and encouraging open communication can help mitigate reporting delays. Create an Investigation Plan: Developing a clear plan that outlines the complaint’s nature, investigation scope, and the involved participants is crucial. Consider whether the investigation will be privileged and designate the investigator. This ensures focus and efficiency, allowing flexibility if needed while maintaining the structure for a complete investigation. Determine the Investigation Scope: Clearly defining the goals of the investigation, such as ensuring fairness and reaching a resolution, is essential. Specify the scope by detailing the specific questions the investigation aims to address, maintaining focus and clarity. Avoid legal inquiries (i.e., was the complainant subject to a hostile work environment) and instead focus on factual aspects, such as determining if the complainant received unwelcome advances from a supervisor at the company holiday party. Gather and Preserve Relevant Documents: Collecting and maintaining relevant documentation throughout the investigation process is vital. This includes policies, witness statements, and any other pertinent information. Before interviewing any witnesses, the investigator should begin to gather, assemble, and review relevant documents that will eventually form the investigation file. Continuously update the investigation file as new documents become available. During witness interviews, take detailed notes, documenting observations and conversations with clear and descriptive language. Details such as body language and specific incidents should be included to provide a comprehensive overview. Finalize the Investigation File: Whether conveying the investigation findings through a written report or informal communication, it is crucial to ensure that all parties involved receive the information. There are some instances where a written report may not be wise; you should consult with counsel before determining how to conclude the investigation. Additionally, preserving the investigation file separately from personnel records ensures accessibility and confidentiality. It is also essential to securely store relevant communications, notes, and documents in a central repository. By following these steps and maintaining transparency throughout the process, the employer can uphold the integrity of its organization and provide a sense of fairness to all involved parties. If you have any further questions or concerns about conducting internal investigations, please don't hesitate to reach out. Blog Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for advice on specific legal issues. 

April 24, 2024

Labor and Employment

Ask Sarah: Handling Extended Employee Absences Effectively

Dear Sarah: Help! I have an employee who has been out of work for twenty weeks. He has an “expected” return to work date, but we have not received anything definitive. Because of his absence, business is suffering, and I need to find someone to take over his job duties. What am I legally permitted to do here!? — Frustrated & Confused HR Rep Believe it or not, encountering this issue is not uncommon. When an employee requests additional time off beyond their twelve-week Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitlement (assuming FMLA applies to that employer), it often leaves employers feeling perplexed. Accommodating a disabled employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) can pose significant challenges for employers. If the employee's limitations prevent them from fulfilling essential job duties, granting an unpaid leave of absence may be deemed a reasonable accommodation. However, relying solely on unpaid leave creates staffing challenges for employers. Nonetheless, if other alternative accommodations are not feasible, unpaid leave should be considered an option. Reasonable accommodations for a qualified individual with a disability — defined as someone who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of their job — may involve various measures, including:   Eliminating non-essential job duties Modifying job processes Providing supportive aids to assist the employee Adjusting schedules to accommodate needs Offering light duty positions if available Facilitating transfers to open positions Granting an unpaid leave of absence, among other options While an employer is not obligated to provide the exact accommodation requested by an employee, it is required to provide a reasonable accommodation that enables the employee to effectively perform essential job functions. If implementing the only feasible reasonable accommodation would result in substantial difficulty or expense for the employer or fundamentally alter the nature of the job, it may be deemed an undue hardship, exempting the employer from providing it. The threshold for defining undue hardship may vary based on the employer's size and resources, but meeting this standard can be particularly challenging in certain circumstances. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) ADA guidance suggests that considering unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation is wise for employers. While EEOC guidance lacks the weight of law, courts often find it persuasive due to the agency's role in ADA enforcement. The duration of leave an employer must grant is not explicitly defined and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The EEOC and numerous federal courts assert that an indefinite leave of absence without a reasonable estimate of the return-to-work timeframe may constitute an undue hardship and is not mandatory. However, situations where an employee's medical provider recommends an extended absence before the employee returns to the job pose challenging and context-specific questions influenced by factors such as the nature of the employer's business, the employee's role, and the anticipated duration of absence. While definitive answers may not exist for every scenario, if the requested leave has a defined duration and supporting medical documentation suggests it will enable the employee to return to work, employers retain the right to deny it if granting the leave would unduly burden the business. Furthermore, even if a specific leave initially seems manageable, circumstances may change over time, emphasizing the importance of requiring thorough documentation throughout the leave period. For example, requesting a note from the treating physician specifying an estimated return-to-work date and asking the medical provider to opine on the medical rationale for the leave may help make the leave process more transparent and facilitate the employee's return. Additionally, gathering this information could help employers apply the undue hardship analysis in a manner that is advantageous to its operations. Handling successive leave requests cautiously and seeking consultation before making decisions are crucial practices to uphold. In conclusion, navigating extended employee leaves beyond the FMLA entitlement can be daunting for employers, especially when accommodating disabled employees under the ADA. While unpaid leave may be a reasonable accommodation, it can pose operational challenges. Employers must explore alternative accommodations while considering undue hardship factors, such as significant difficulty or expense. The EEOC's guidance on unpaid leave underscores its importance as a potential accommodation, albeit without a specified duration. However, indefinite leaves without a return-to-work timeframe may constitute undue hardship. Employers should carefully assess each situation, document medical rationales, and seek legal advice to make informed decisions. If you're facing similar HR dilemmas or need legal guidance on employment matters, don't hesitate to contact me for assistance. Reach out today to ensure compliance with ADA regulations and protect your business's interests. Blog Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for advice on specific legal issues. 

April 10, 2024