Workforce Bulletin

On October 3, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s Opinion and Order in Mark C. Savignac and Julia Sheketoff v. Jones Day, et al., 19-cv-02443-RDM, addressed Title VII’s “participation clause,” in granting in part and denying in part, the law firm’s motion for summary judgment.

The court further denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, a married couple who were both formerly employed as attorneys (she resigned in 2018, he was terminated in 2019), alleged federal and state discrimination and retaliation claims based on their objections to Jones Day’s unequal parental leave policies. In the latter part of the opinion, the Court analyzed whether Savignac engaged in protected activity under the participation clause of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

In addition to prohibiting discrimination, Title VII’s provisions protect a covered individual from employer retaliation when the individual participates in an investigation or opposes covered unlawful conduct. These provisions—commonly referred to as the “participation clause” and “opposition clause”—are intended to encourage employees to report, and employers to address, discrimination in the workplace. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently weighed in on the circuit-splitting debate over the proper causation standard for Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) retaliation claims. In a win for employers, the Eleventh Circuit held that the proper standard is the heightened “but-for” causation standard, rather than the “motivating factor” causation standard, leading it to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens”) against plaintiff Doris Lapham (“Lapham”) on her FMLA ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we look at updated regulations in California and New York City and at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).

On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court, in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (Cal., Jan. 27, 2022) __ P.3d __, 2022 WL 244731, clarified the evidentiary standard for presenting and evaluating retaliation claims under California Labor Code Section 1102.5 (“section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claim”).   Lawson involved a workplace retaliation claim brought by a sales representative selling paint products to home improvement stores in Southern California. The plaintiff claimed his employer terminated him because he complained about being instructed to alter the tint of certain paint colors to avoid having to repurchase less popular paints from the retailer later.

In 2003, California lawmakers enacted Labor Code Section 1102.6, setting forth a framework for whistleblower retaliation claims that varied from the burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 (“McDonnell Douglas”).  Despite section 1102.6’s enactment, some California courts continued to apply the McDonnell Douglas test to section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claims.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are intended to promote the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of lawsuits. For companies defending baseless employment claims, those words may feel like an empty promise. The First Circuit’s recent decision in Alston v. Spiegel sanctioning an attorney for filing frivolous discrimination and retaliation claims, however, reminds employers that there are strategies for deterring such claims

Facts

In late 2015, attorney Brooks Ames filed a complaint on behalf of Gerald Alston, a former firefighter for the Town of Brookline ...

The top story on Employment Law This Week is the EEOC's release of fiscal year 2015 enforcement data.

Retaliation claims were once again the number one type of charge filed, up 5% from last year for a total of 44.5% of all charges. Race claims were second, making up 34.7% of claims. 30.2% of charges alleged disability discrimination, up 6% from last year. Ronald M. Green from Epstein Becker Green (EBG) gives more detail on what’s behind the numbers.

View the episode below or read recent comments about the EEOC's release, from David W. Garland of EBG.