Compliance Stuff

Employment  discrimination  lawsuits are almost invariably triggered by an “adverse action.” The standard burden-shifting framework for a plaintiff to prove her  prima facie  Title VII discrimination case reads: A plaintiff must present sufficient evidence that she was: 1) a member of a protected class; 2) qualified for the position; 3) suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.   See  Jones v. School District of Philadelphia,  198 F.3d 403 at 410-411 (3d Cir., 1999);   Boykins v. Lucent Tech., Inc.,  78 F.Supp.2d 402, 409 (E.D.Pa.2000) ;  see also  In re Carnegie Ctr. Assocs.,  129 F.3d at 294-295  (citations omitted). Most often, an adverse employment action in the employment discrimination context is a termination. However, there are other types of adverse employment actions, which can help a plaintiff satisfy her  prima facie  burden. For e...

On January 2, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the denial of an employee’s request to continue working from home as a disability accommodation was not enough to constitute disability discrimination , finding that the failure to accommodate alone is not an adverse employment action. 0:00 7:01 Quick Hits The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that denying an employee’s request to continue working from home as a disability accommodation does not constitute disability discrimination. The ruling emphasized that an adverse employment action supporting a disability discrimination claim must be based on an employee’s disability . The ruling underscores the importance of the interactive process in accommodating employees and clarifies the difference between proving a failure to accommodate claim versus discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of New York City on a claim by a former New York Ci...

Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ April 2024 ruling in  Muldrow v. City of St. Louis , employers have grappled with determining what constitutes an adverse employment action that will support a claim under federal antidiscrimination laws. A  recent decision  from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit offers some guidance in the context of job reassignments or transfers. Quick Hits In  Herkert v. Bisignano , No. 24-1420 (August 14, 2025), the Fourth Circuit found that, depending on the circumstances, a job reassignment may be an adverse employment action under the Supreme Court’s  Muldrow  standard. While finding that an employee’s acceptance of a new position does not necessarily mean that the change was voluntary, the Fourth Circuit declined to hold that  any  loss of supervisory authority would constitute “an actionable ‘disadvantageous change’ in employment status.” Employers may need to be prepared to explain and de...

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides critical job-protected leave for employees facing serious health conditions or family needs. However, the protections of the FMLA are not absolute, and employees may find themselves without its shield when an employer honestly believes they have engaged in FMLA fraud. A recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit offers a cautionary tale for both employers and employees about the consequences of FMLA fraud and the importance of maintaining integrity in the administration of leave. Quick Hits The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that an employee on FMLA leave may be discharged based on the employer’s honest belief that the employee has lied about the need for such leave. The FMLA protects eligible employees from retaliation or interference when taking qualified leave, but it does not insulate employees from discipline for fraudulent or dishonest conduct. Employers may investigate suspected FMLA ab...