New Supreme Court ruling again emphasizes that filing EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII claim in federal court.
Unfortunately, for this public school employer, it’s “good deed” does not go unpunished, as evidenced by an employee’s civil rights claims brought in federal court.
Court allows class action case to proceed against Ford Motor over claim that company’s online job portal is too difficult for applicants with disabilities to navigate.
Rumor-based sexual harassment claim draws attention in the form of nearly 50 amicus curiae briefs from across the country. This post explains why.
Uninformed employer decisions in whistleblower actions among the most treacherous and difficult to defend in court.
Remaining flexible on religious accommodations could help employers stay off the naughty list with Michigan’s courts.
EEOC and Justice Department locked in clash of titans battle over discrimination protections for LGBTQ employees.
To avoid legal quagmires, employers must understand the differences between federal and Michigan law regarding employees claiming disabilities.
In a real game changer for employers and employees, a recent federal court ruling disavows application of the tender back rule to employment cases under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.
State Civil Rights Commission expands scope to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination claims while U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in much-anticipated freedom of religion/expression case.
Appellate court rules Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender employees from discrimination by employers in the workplace.
Appellate court forced to follow old precedent under Michigan wage law calls for conflict panel to re-examine that ruling.
Scheduling changes based on employer’s legitimate staffing concerns during upcoming leave of absence violated federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Federal appellate court's ruling that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation sets stage for showdown in U.S. Supreme Court.
Appellate court reverses lower court ruling based on same-actor defense in employment case involving direct evidence of discrimination.
The EEOC has issued a new Fact Sheet addressing bathroom access rights for transgender employees.
Check out the EEOC's new quick-read pamphlet for employers that provides helpful information and links to important Internet content.
Human resources must consider diversity within job classifications to help deter potential sex discrimination liability.
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Wage & Hour
- Human Resources
- Employment Discrimination
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Transgender Issues
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Title VII
- Employment Agreement
- Hostile Work Environment
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Class Actions
- Workplace Harassment
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Minimum Wage
- Sick Leave
- Adopt and Amend? Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Paid Medical Leave, Improved Workforce Opportunity Acts
- New ADA Case Is Great For Employers
- Michigan Legislature Challenges its Own Lame Duck Amendments to Paid Sick Time, Minimum Wage Rate Laws
- Supreme Court Rules EEOC Charge not Jurisdictional Requirement for Bringing Civil Rights Claims in Federal Court
- Causal Connection between Protected Activity and Adverse Action Supported By Employer’s ‘Good Deed’
- Does Your Company’s Employment Application Process Violate the ADA?
- Let me Tell You What I Just Heard…
- If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try... Try... Again
- URGENT UPDATE on Contractual Limitations Periods
- Does Your Company Require Employees to Accept a Shortened Contractual Limitations Period?