The university kept paying its softball coach during an investigation. Its no-contact order also stopped her from teaching, and the suspension became a $300,000 sex bias judgment. TL;DR: A jury found sex motivated a university’s paid suspension of its women’s softball coach, and an appeals court upheld the $300,000 judgment.
The company had decided to eliminate his job before he told his manager about his planned parental leave. So why did he get his termination notice in April when the other people on the layoff list remained until July? TL;DR: An employer had already selected an employee for a restructuring
A federal judge dismissed this white employee’s hostile workplace claim last year. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered the alleged training remarks alongside years of workplace incidents and gave the claim new life. TL;DR: A jury could find a racially hostile work environment based on alleged statements during DEI training
Pride flags came down. Pride stickers were covered and prohibited. An LGBTQ+ student club received extra field-trip scrutiny. That is how three teachers described the pattern in their complaint. TL;DR: Three LGBTQ+ teachers claimed discrimination after a school district restricted Pride flags and stickers and required extra field-trip information. The
The employer hired an outside investigator to examine workplace concerns. A former HR employee later relied on what the investigator allegedly documented to support her own bias claims. TL;DR: A White HR employee alleged that leadership tolerated racial preferences, excluded her from a DEI webinar, and fired her after she
HR can ask an employee to explain a religious conflict. The trouble begins when the review turns into a theological examination. TL;DR: A federal appeals court revived an employee’s religious-accommodation claim after her employer treated her vaccine objections as secular. Personal, medical, and ethical concerns did not erase the religious
Management enforced its drug-testing rule. The exceptions it made afterward created the bigger problem. TL;DR: A federal appeals court revived race-discrimination and retaliation claims because a White employee received a second chance that two Black employees did not, while other evidence included unequal pay, White replacements, and conflicting explanations for
The company had an anti-harassment policy, trained its employee-relations manager to investigate complaints, and opened one. Then it assigned the accused supervisor to counsel the employee who complained about him. TL;DR: The only Black employee in an office reported racist conduct by her supervisor. The investigation skipped a key witness,