CDF Labor Law LLP’s Post

Kelsie A. Wiltse brings us - The U.S. Supreme Court Lowers the Standard for an Employee to Prove Workplace Discrimination from an Involuntary Job Transfer. Read the latest. #laborlaw #employmentlaw #workplacediscrimination https://lnkd.in/eQ4cMKXa

The Supreme Court recently clarified that only a showing of "some harm" is required by employees claiming discrimination based on a protected identity in the context of job transfers. This is more lenient than the "significant harm" standard previously used by some appellate courts. This decision is part of a larger trend in both decisional law and statutory developments concerning the scrutiny of employment actions under the employment discrimination laws. #employmentlaw #workplacediscrimination

The Supreme Court now requires only 'some' harm to prove job transfer discrimination under Title VII. Read more about this important update in our employment practice area's latest article. #KoleyJessen

Big Win for Workers in Supreme Court's Latest Decision! In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has just lowered the threshold for proving discrimination in job transfers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. The significance of this ruling is that it lowers the threshold for proving discrimination in job transfers, meaning that even minor changes that disadvantage an employee can be grounds for a discrimination claim if they are based on sex, race, or another protected characteristic. This decision is a crucial clarification that potentially expands protections for employees, ensuring that subtler forms of discrimination cannot be overlooked simply because they do not alter major aspects of employment like salary or job title. Even minor changes in your job that negatively impact your day-to-day duties or work environment could be grounds for a discrimination claim. #workersrights #TitleVII #EmploymentDiscrimination #EmploymentLaw #EmploymentLawyers

The Supreme Court clarifies that only a showing of "some harm" is required by employees claiming discrimination based on a protected identity in the context of job transfers. This is more lenient than the "significant harm" standard previously used by some appellate courts. This decision is part of a larger trend in both decisional law and statutory developments concerning the scrutiny of employment actions under the employment discrimination laws.   Kenneth Gage Marc Bernstein Patrick Shea Carson Sullivan Teresa Greider Allison Talker Chelsea Desruisseaux #EmploymentLaw #SupremeCourtDecision #TitleVII

Yesterday, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision: mandatory job transfers can constitute discrimination, even if there's no reduction in pay or benefits. This ruling has significant implications for employment law and workplace rights. Learn more about this decision from employment lawyer Colin A. Walker here. #WorkplaceRights #JobTransfer #DiscriminationLaw 

Dive into the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling on job transfers under Title VII. In their latest Labor & Employment Insights blog post, Keith Anderson and Anne Yuengert unpack the 'some harm' standard and its potential effects on discrimination claims. [https://bit.ly/4dy5w6Q]

The Employment Rights Bill was published yesterday – here are the headlines: 1. Day One rights including the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one (subject to a new statutory probationary period to test new employees’ suitability – possibly for 9 months); 2. Flexible working requests can only be rejected on limited grounds (in writing) which must be reasonable – this reasonableness test goes further than before; 3. Fire and rehire will be outlawed except in limited circumstances and consultation will be important in establishing fairness; 4. Sexual harassment – employers must take ALL steps to prevent this AND must prevent third party harassment of employees See the attached article for more details and do get in touch if you want to discuss.

🚨 Big news for HR professionals and employers! The Supreme Court has simplified the burden of proof for Title VII job transfer discrimination claims. This decision could significantly impact how you manage job transfers to prevent discrimination claims within your organization. Explore our latest blog for a breakdown of the ruling and what it means for your HR practices. Stay informed and ahead of the curve! Learn more here: https://lnkd.in/gBhhm7B6 #WorkShield #HRCompliance #SupremeCourt #TitleVII

We recently asked our LinkedIn community for their thoughts on 'day one' rights for workers, sparked by the government's proposed changes to unfair dismissal claims, which would remove the requirement for two years of continuous employment. 💭 Opinions differed, but a clear consensus emerged: the majority of our community feels that neither the current policy nor the newly proposed changes to employment rights are the best approach. Instead, they support granting full rights only after an employee has successfully completed a six-month probationary period. Thank you to everyone who participated and shared their insights! Check out all the results below 👇 #LabourGovernment #Employment #Recruitment