Compliance Stuff

When events like what’s unfolding in Minneapolis dominate the news cycle, they don’t stay outside the workplace. Employees bring their reactions, fears, anger, grief, and opinions with them — into meetings, breakrooms, Slack channels, and client calls. For California employers, these moments are especially challenging. Leaders want to acknowledge what employees are experiencing without taking political sides, maintain productivity without appearing indifferent, and avoid legal missteps in an already emotionally charged environment. The reality is this: employers cannot — and should not try to — pretend these conversations aren’t happening. But they also are not required to allow workplace discussions to spiral into conflict or harm. Why These Conversations Create Risk High-profile incidents involving race, policing, violence, or social unrest often intersect directly with workplace protections . For some employees, these events feel deeply personal. For others, they prompt strong opini...

May an employee assert a hostile work environment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)? In  Blumenshine v. Bloomington School District No. 87 , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit responded affirmatively, and, in so doing, joined a number of its sister circuits that had previously recognized such a claim. This case serves as a significant reminder to employers to understand how age discrimination can manifest in the workplace and the legal standards required to prove such claims. Quick Hits The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals joined multiple other federal courts of appeals in finding that hostile work environment claims are viable under the ADEA . As part of stating an age discrimination claim, an employee must establish that the complained-of conduct is based on his or her age. Speculative and conclusory allegations are not sufficient to support a claim of age-based harassment. Background The plaintiff was a long-tenured and “exemplary” teache...

  Prior to the advent of social media, employers were generally comfortable drawing a bright line between what employees did on their own time and workplace misconduct . Those bygone times, however, have been replaced by a modern era wherein employers are forced to apply employment laws created before the personal computer to their workforce located in an increasingly virtual world. Courts are addressing employment matters involving speech on social media at a progressively increasing rat e. In this edition of #NoFilter, we will discuss a recent 9 th   Circuit Court of Appeals decision   involving outside-of-work social media posts to an employee’s workplace hostile work environment claim. Factual Background In  Okonowsky v. Merrick Garland , a staff psychologist (the Plaintiff) working for a federal prison discovered that a corrections Lieutenant operated an Instagram account followed by more than one hundred other prison employees. The page contained s exually off...

  The Connecticut Supreme Court recently adopted the U.S. Supreme Court's relatively narrow definition of “supervisor” for use in determining when employers are liable under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) for creating or failing to remedy a hostile work environment. The decision provides employers with clarity as the term is not defined by the CFEPA. How We Got Here In  O’Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ,  SC20847  (Aug. 1, 2024), the plaintiff had worked as an adjudicator for the Connecticut Department of Labor . She sued the department claiming the program service coordinator to whom she reported had subjected her to a hostile work environment. The program service coordinator had authority to assign the plaintiff work, approve leave requests, set schedules, provide training and conduct reviews. The program service coordinator did not have authority, however, to hire, fire or discipline the plaintiff or other employees....

It is not news that employees “hang out” and socialize “outside of work” through social media platforms. While these platforms provide outlets for employees to express themselves, bond, chat, joke, and share vacation photos, these sites can also be used to harass, threaten, and harm employees. Misuse of social media among coworkers can create a hostile and toxic work environment that can lead to employer liability if not addressed. In Okonowsky v. Garland , Case No. D.C. 2:21-cv-07581-VAP-AS (Jul. 25, 2024), the Ninth Circuit ruled that e mployers can be held liable for claims of hostile work environment under Title VII if an employee shares content on a personal social media account that negatively impacts the workplace. Unsurprisingly, Okonowsky aligns with recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance, issued April 29, that discusses the ways in which employee social media use outside of the workplace can contribute to a sexually hostile work environment. Factual B...