HDR thirdshift

New labor posters need to be posted on August 1, 2016

Because of recent changes in federal employment regulations, new labor posters must be posted by today, August 1, 2016:

Continue reading

Historic settlement of sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit

On June 28, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it had settled one of its first lawsuits alleging sexual orientation discrimination. The settlement—in the form of a consent decree—requires Pallet Companies, doing business as IFCO Systems (IFCO), to pay $202,200 in addition to a number of nonmonetary requirements. This landmark decree comes less than a year after the EEOC first concluded that discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation amounted to sex discrimination.

Continue reading

Employers are limited in use of social media to oppose “unionizing” efforts

As discussed in a previous post, employers cannot terminate employees for using social media to exercise their right to engage in protected concerted activity (typically seen as “unionizing”). Holding that employers cannot fight fire with fire, a recent court decision has now limited the extent of the employer’s ability to use social media to oppose “unionizing” activities.

Continue reading

Restaurant’s social media rules violate National Labor Relations Act


An administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has required a restaurant to rehire and pay back wages to an employee who was fired for violating the restaurant’s social media policy. The employee, a veteran who allegedly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), tweeted about—

Continue reading

Employers face greater challenge in defending discrimination lawsuits

In a case of first impression, Quigg v. Thomas County School District, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the burden-shifting framework (known as “McDonell Douglas”) established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 for cases involving mixed-motive discrimination claims. Instead, the Court adopted a less stringent standard, allowing claims to proceed where the plaintiff is able to show that (1) the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff and (2) a protected characteristic was a motivating factor for the adverse employment action.

Continue reading