The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC whether a whistleblower must prove that an employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Court’s decision will settle a split between the circuit courts, which will impact how employers defend against Sarbanes-Oxley Act retaliation claims.
Category: Employment Litigation
Is a Lateral Job Transfer With No Change in Pay or Benefits an Adverse Employment Action Under Title VII? The Supreme Court has Decided to Weigh In
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., No. 22-193, to address a split in the circuit courts over whether a forced lateral transfer, with no change in pay or benefits, is an adverse employment action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such a finding would further expand the type of conduct that can give rise to a cause of action under Title VII.
To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
Employers Beware: Sudden Spike in Class Actions Under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act
Common to the class actions filed this year are allegations that employers requested or required candidates to disclose their family medical histories before receiving employment offers. The plaintiffs’ bar in Illinois may be looking to use the Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) to challenge on a class-wide basis conduct that could only be challenged under the federal Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) on an individual basis.
State & Local Employment Law Developments: Q3 2023
As we witnessed in Q1 and Q2, state and local governments continued to increase workplace regulations in Q3, including in regard to discrimination and harassment and paid leave. Read our update for an overview of recent and upcoming legislative developments to help you and your organization stay in compliance.
Continue reading “State & Local Employment Law Developments: Q3 2023”
Life After Students for Fair Admissions: Dissecting Challenges to Employers’ Diversity Programs
The American First Legal Foundation and other organizations like it, have taken the position that all diversity, equity and inclusion programs are illegal since the Students for Fair Admissions Inc. decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. The groups have already filed actions against several companies for polices that include goals for the placement of people of color and women in leadership and leadership pipeline positions to match community demographics by a certain year; employee training and apprenticeship programs focused on underrepresented groups; and quantitative representation metrics for leadership incorporated into annual incentive compensation awards for senior leadership.
Next Stage Considerations About the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision: How to Put the Warning Letter from the State Attorneys General in Context
As higher education institutions, state and local governments, private employers and federal contractors grapple with understanding the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 (U.S. June 29, 2023), it is not surprising that elected officials — including 13 state attorneys general — have markedly different views about the philosophy and effects of affirmative action and other race-conscious policies. So, what should potentially affected organizations do in response to this legal uncertainty? We suggest taking a breath and bringing method to the madness.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.