News

You’ve no doubt heard it again and again—the key to winning lawsuits is to document, document, document. Courts don’t lend much credence to documents that appear after the fact, often suspecting that such notes are made up to cover discrimination.

Set reasonable, objective goals that can be achieved with sufficient effort in the time allotted in the PIP. Don’t create impossible goals that can’t be achieved absent Herculean efforts.

When it comes to incriminating evidence, there’s literally almost nothing that beats a damning email—especially when it tips off efforts to retaliate against an employee.

The Trump administration has begun revoking the immigration status for some workers before the expiration date printed on their EADs. With E-Verify, that change was pushed your way automatically. DHS changed that practice and placed the burden on employers.

Sometimes, as happened in a recent case, management decides that rather than listen to the bystander, they’ll punish the messenger. That’s not going to play well with the EEOC.

The cardinal rule for racist slurs and jokes is this: Never ignore a complaint without an investigation or assume an innocent intent. And watch what you say in emails!

Under the ADA, there’s no obligation to reasonably accommodate a spouse’s illness. But a recent case in California under that state’s ADA equivalent may portend a trend.

An employee states she has a disability (fibromyalgia) and undiagnosed autism. She says this makes it hard for her to process thoughts, which makes her slower at reading notes on the computer, processing client requests, answering phones as quickly as others and the ability to multitask. She has never provided any reasonable accommodation information from her doctor.

Can a perceived customer preference for non-disabled front-of-house workers make being able to stand and walk without a limp an essential function of the job? One employer found out when it ended up paying $100,000 for turning down a request for a stool.

In a mixed decision that may invite other cases, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a retired disabled individual could not sue her former employer over an alleged discriminatory policy change that cut her retiree health benefit.