Employment Law Blog

Can In-House Counsel Use Client Information to Support her Discrimination Claims against her Employer?

August 12, 2019
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York ruled on July 11, 2019, that Jennifer Fischman, former Acting General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of Mitsubishi Holdings America, Inc. (“Mitsubishi”), did not rely on privileged and/or confidential client information in asserting claims of sex discrimination...

Employee-Friendly Changes to Maryland Law to go into Effect on October 1, 2019

July 16, 2019
At the end of its most recent legislative session, the Maryland General Assembly passed a suite of bills aimed at promoting gender diversity and equal pay in the workplace and strengthening protections against workplace harassment under the state’s existing antidiscrimination law, the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (...

Taking Aim at the Gender Pay Gap

July 10, 2019
The MeToo movement, which initially focused on sexual misconduct, has started conversations about gender equity in the workplace generally, sparking a renewed interest in addressing gender-based pay discrimination. Overall, women receive about 80 cents on the dollar compared to men, while women of color typically receive even...

State of the States: Wage and Employment Law in the DMV

May 9, 2019
Maryland and the District of Columbia have some of the most progressive employment laws in the country, offering protections and remedies beyond those guaranteed by the federal minimum wage and antidiscrimination laws that apply nationwide. This year alone, Maryland joined four other states and the District of Columbia in...

Military Cannot Discriminate Against HIV-Positive Servicemembers, Court Rules

April 2, 2019
LGBTQ+ advocates recently won a major victory in a lawsuit challenging discrimination in the military on the basis of HIV status. On February 15, 2019, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia granted the request of two HIV-positive Air Force servicemembers to temporarily block their imminent discharge from...

Google Employees Spearhead Change: Eliminating Forced Arbitration in Sexual Harassment Claims

March 22, 2019
On February 21, 2019, Google announced that it would end its practice of forced arbitration and class action waivers for all claims brought by current or future employees, expanding the commitment Google made in November 2018 to end the practice for claims of workplace sexual harassment and assault. The policy took effect...

Rumors at Work: Court Rules Stereotyped Gossip Constitutes Sex-Based Harassment

March 11, 2019
The Fourth Circuit issued an important decision in February, holding that spreading rumors that a female subordinate slept with a male superior to obtain promotions could constitute sexual harassment under Title VII, and that complaining about such harassment could constitute protected conduct for a retaliation claim. In Parker...

Rare Win for Transportation Workers at Supreme Court over Mandatory Arbitration

March 1, 2019
On January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court decided in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira that a court cannot enforce a mandatory arbitration agreement against a long-haul truck driver under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), notwithstanding his classification as an independent contractor rather than an employee. No. 17-340, slip op. at 15...

Seventh Circuit Joins Other Courts in Rejecting ADEA Impact Claims by Job Applicants

January 29, 2019
On January 23, 2019, a majority of the Seventh Circuit ruled in an en banc decision that the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not permit disparate impact challenges to employers’ hiring practices. See Kleber v. CareFusion Corp., 2019 WL 290241 (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019). In reaching this conclusion, the...

Does it Matter that the Supreme Court has Agreed to Review Fort Bend County v. Davis?

January 29, 2019
UPDATE: The Supreme Court unanimously held that the administrative charge filing requirement in the federal employment discrimination statutes is not a jurisdictional requirement.  That means that while filing a charge is still required, if a plaintiff fails to file or fails to put all of her claims or allegations in...

Pages