Taking a Deeper Look at the Implications of the NLRB Declaring Captive-Audience Meetings Unlawful

On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, holding that "captive-audience meetings" are unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This decision reverses 76 years of precedent, which permitted employers to hold such meetings. More ›

What Does New York City's Expanded Anti-Discrimination Protection Mean for Employers?

On May 11, 2024, a new law went into effect, amending New York City Administrative Code §§ 8-109 and 8-502. The law prohibits provisions in agreements that shorten the timeframe an employee has to file a claim for unlawful discriminatory practices, harassment, or violence under the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").  More ›

EEOC Publishes Final Guidance on Workplace Harassment

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a final version of its Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment. The new guidance provides  updates and agency direction on workplace harassment in virtual or online work environments, as well as harassment related to sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and religion. More ›

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Retaliation Claim Because HR Manager's Conduct was "Unreasonable" and Not Protected Under Title VII

In Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., the Eleventh Circuit examined Title VII's opposition clause and the extent to which "oppositional conduct" can be considered so unreasonable that it loses Title VII protection. In this case, Kia fired its HR manager for strongly encouraging an employee to file a discrimination lawsuit against the company. Once terminated, the HR manager sued the company for retaliation, arguing that her actions were protected by Title VII's opposition clause. The court rejected the argument and the claim, handing a victory to employers. More ›

Voluntary Disclosure of Medical Information does not Create Employer Liability Under the ADA

A truck driver voluntarily informed his company's human resources manager that he was HIV-positive. Several months later, the driver decided to become a driver-trainer for the company. The company's HR manager expressed some concerns regarding the driver's ability to work as a trainer because of his HIV-positive status. The company and the driver discussed the matter, and ultimately decided that the driver's HIV status would be disclosed to those he trained via an acknowledgement form informing trainees that the driver suffered from HIV. Ultimately, the relationship between the driver and the company deteriorated significantly, and the driver's contract was terminated. The EEOC filed suit against the company on the driver's behalf, raising a number of claims. Included among these was a violation of Section 102(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), which governs medical examinations and inquiries. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit held that Section 102(d) only prohibits the disclosure of confidential information obtained through an authorized medical examination. It does not, the court held, protect information that is voluntarily disclosed by an employee outside of an authorized employment-related medical exam or inquiry. This opinion recognizes an important limitation on Section 102(d), which could otherwise rapidly devolve into a strict-liability provision that creates liability for any disclosure. Such a result would negatively impact the ability of employers and employees to develop creative solutions to difficult situations, like the one presented here. Nevertheless, employers must tread with extreme caution whenever disclosing confidential employee information, as doing so could lead to litigation not only under the ADA, but under state tort laws as well.

EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc., Nos. 09-4207, 09-4217 (10th Cir., May 3, 2011)