The federal courts in D.C. have long held that denial of a lateral transfer does not violate Title VII for the reason that, unlike where a promotion is denied, there is no adverse employment action when an employee is denied a purely lateral transfer. A panel of the D.C. Circuit recently decided otherwise where the employee proffered evidence that the employer’s discriminatory denial of his lateral transfer request would have an “adverse impact on the employee’s potential for career advancement.”

Continue Reading Does Denial of a Lateral Transfer Violate Title VII? In Some Cases, Yes, Says D.C. Circuit.

It’s been a terrific run.  A real Cinderella story.  Who would have thought that a little blog out of the northeast region could make so much noise in the thought leadership world?!  We learned a lot along the way and we hope you did too.  While we celebrate by cutting down the (inter)net (or better yet, by removing the keys from our keyboard), here’s a quick recap of where we’ve been:

Continue Reading Mintz March Madness Comes to an End

This past week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision addressing two on-the-bubble workplace confidentiality policies – one which made the cut, while the other one made its way over to the legal equivalent of the NIT.  The decision explored the boundaries of workplace directives related to the discussion of salary and employee discipline information and non-disclosure in investigations.

Continue Reading March Vastness: Blanket Policies on Employee Salary and Discipline Disclosures Unlawful, Says D.C. Circuit Court

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently entered the Browning-Ferris saga, filing an amicus brief in support of the new joint employer test articulated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in August 2015.  Drawing comparisons to its own joint employer test, the EEOC urges the D.C. Court of Appeals to uphold the NLRB’s pliable, fact-specific test to determine whether an entity sufficiently controls the terms and conditions of an individual’s employment to be a joint employer.

Continue Reading EEOC Urges Federal Appellate Court to Uphold NLRB’s Expansive Definition of “Joint Employer”

As a general principle, an employee alleging employment discrimination has an affirmative obligation to mitigate his or her lost wages by making a good faith effort to secure alternative employment.  The employer however, bears the burden of proving that the employee failed to make such an effort.  A recent decision from the D.C. district court reminds us that the employer’s burden is not as onerous as it sounds.

Continue Reading D.C. District Court Examines an Employer’s Burden to Prove a Failure to Mitigate Damages in an Employment Discrimination Action

Last week, Browning-Ferris Industries, the California-based waste management company, appealed two decisions issued by the National Labor Relations Board related to the definition of joint employer.  Its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit represents just the latest chapter in an ongoing saga that began with a momentous ruling by the NLRB this past August.  The outcome of this appeal could have serious implications for affected companies, workers and other stakeholders.

Continue Reading Adventures in Joint Employment: the Browning-Ferris Saga Continues with an Appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

The NLRB has once again held that a mandatory arbitration agreement including a class/collective action waiver violates the National Labor Relations Act.  With barely an acknowledgment that the Fifth Circuit reversed its last two decisions reaching the same conclusion, the Board ruled in Amex Card Service Co., No. 28–CA–123865 (Nov. 10, 2015), that Amex committed an unfair labor practice by maintaining and enforcing an arbitration policy that required employees, as a condition of their employment, to resolve all claims against the company through individual arbitration.

Continue Reading NLRB Won’t Take “No” For an Answer — Holds Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement Unlawful Despite Two Previous Reversals at the Fifth Circuit