Workforce Bulletin

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit provides an important reminder that an employer’s exposure to a retaliation claim can arise even after it has already made a lawful decision to terminate an employee.

In Russo v. New Hampshire Neurospine Institute, P.A., No. 25-1519 (1st Cir. Aug. 25, 2026), the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an employer on an employee’s sex discrimination claim, but reinstated her retaliation claim. The court concluded that, although the employer had decided to terminate the employee before her attorney sent a demand letter alleging discrimination on her behalf, a jury could find that subsequent changes to the terms and timing of her separation were retaliatory.

In this installment of Epstein Becker Green’s “Class Action Avoidance” webinar series, attorneys Lauri F. Rasnick and Frank C. Morris, Jr. address potential discrimination class actions related to office reopenings, the changing way in which we work, and the impact that the pandemic has had on individuals in protected classes.

As many employers think about reopening their offices and other workspaces, they should consider how they do so very carefully in order to avoid decisions that may adversely impact certain protected groups or lead to disparate decision making.

The first quarter of 2018 has already stirred up an array of legal matters that employers in the hospitality industry should be conscious of, both in their day-to-day operations and long-term planning. In February alone, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to curb lawsuits focused on the inaccessibility of brick-and-mortar business establishments and a federal appeals court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Labor announced a ...

Our colleagues Nathaniel M. Glasser and Amanda M. Gómez, at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Health Employment and Labor blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Sixth Circuit Finds Title VII Covers Discrimination Based on Transgender Status.”

Following is an excerpt:

In a significant decision on Wednesday, March 6, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes that discrimination against a worker on the basis of gender identity or transitioning status constitutes sex ...

A recent blog post by Susan Fowler, a former software engineer at Uber, and the author of two books regarding software engineering, has once again drawn national attention to the issue of the underrepresentation of women in the technology industry. Her story has received extensive media coverage, and Uber has retained former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate Ms. Fowler’s allegations. Further, the allegations appear to have reinvigorated the #DeleteUber social media campaign.

Ms. Fowler’s account describes a plethora of employment law issues, in particular ...

[caption id="attachment_2472" align="alignright" width="113"] Laura C. Monaco[/caption]

This week, the EEOC filed its first two federal lawsuits that frame allegations of sexual orientation-based harassment and discrimination as claims of unlawful "sex discrimination" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In EEOC v. Pallet Companies the EEOC alleges that an employee's night-shift manager harassed her because of her sexual orientation by making repeated offensive comments (sometimes accompanied by sexually suggestive gestures), such as "I want to turn you back ...

My colleague Nathaniel M. Glasser recently authored Epstein Becker Green’s Take 5 newsletter.   In this edition of Take 5, Nathaniel highlights five areas of enforcement that U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) continues to tout publicly and aggressively pursue.

1. Religious Discrimination and Accommodation—EEOC Is Victorious in New U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
2. Transgender Protections Under Title VII—EEOC Relies on Expanded Sex Discrimination Theories
3. Systemic Investigations and Litigation—EEOC Gives Priority to Enforcement Initiative

Since we last reported on the 2012 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) decision in Macy v. Holder,[1] the federal government has continued to extend protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) to transgender employees.  In July 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order 13672, prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.  Two months later, in September 2014, the EEOC filed its first-ever lawsuits alleging sex discrimination against transgender ...