By: Shardé Skahan, Dawn Solowey, Mackenzie Mullin and Melissa Ortega

Seyfarth Synopsis: With the US on the brink of losing its elimination-of-measles status, forward-thinking employers should take the time to review their policies regarding vaccines and workplace health. Shardé Skahan, Dawn Solowey, Mackenzie Mullin & Melissa Ortega explore what companies need to know as the nation once again faces the potential return of a vaccine-preventable illness.

With the global Covid-19 pandemic in the rear-view mirror, employers are not eager to confront another infectious disease outbreak; they may not have a choice. 2025 had the highest number of measles cases in the US in 20 years, and already in 2026, measles is surging in several states.

Employers should proactively plan to respond to measles outbreaks that affect the workplace.

How much are measles outbreaks increasing?

The US is at risk of losing its measles elimination status, the New York Times reported in January, as 2025 saw the highest number of measles infections in the country in more than two decades. Across 45 states last year, more than 2,200 people were infected with the highly contagious viral respiratory disease. A meeting to review the elimination status of both the US and Mexico has been set for November.

And so far this year, according to the latest available CDC data, as of March 20, there have been nearly 1,500 confirmed cases of measles across the majority of states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. A total of 14 new outbreaks have been reported so far this year, the CDC said, with more than 90% of cases being outbreak-related.

The agency warns that measles can have serious complications including death, hospitalization, pneumonia, swelling of the brain (encephalitis) and pregnancy complications. 

What are the OSHA considerations?

Unfortunately, federal public health guidance from the CDC is limited on the exact steps an employer needs to take if an employee is exposed to or contracts the measles. However, health officials in some locations, including Los Angeles and New Mexico, have conducted contract tracing and worked with employers to protect and inform employees.

While there is no specific OSHA standard covering measles directly, guidance indicates other OSHA standards may apply to the prevention of occupational exposure to measles, creating obligations for employers. Those OSHA standards are the following:

  • Record keeping and reporting: Measles acquired in the workplace is a recordable illness on an OSHA 300 log. Like all work-related injuries and illnesses that result in an in-patient hospitalization within 24 hours of a workplace exposure, employers must report the hospitalization to OSHA within 24 hours of learning of the hospitalization.
  • Personal protective equipment (PPE): OSHA’s PPE standards require that an employer must assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present or are likely to be present and select PPE that will protect affected employees. The employer must provide this PPE and train workers how to use it. For measles, selected PPE may include gloves, eye and face protection and respiratory protection, as determined by the task and hazards identified.
  • Bloodborne pathogens (BBP): OSHA’s BBP standard applies to occupational exposure to some human body fluids, including saliva in dental procedures, which can transmit measles. The BBP standard also describes measures that could serve as a framework to control non-bloodborne exposures that can transmit measles, including exposures to body fluids (e.g., sputum, respiratory and nasal secretions and saliva, outside of dental procedures) to which the standard does not apply. When BBP applies, employers must use universal precautions, maintain a written exposure control program and provide training, PPE and engineering controls to limit or prevent exposure.
  • General duty clause: OSHA’s general duty clause requires employers to furnish to each worker “employment and a place of employment, which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” The general duty clause is OSHA’s “catch-all,” and employers can be cited under this standard if they fail to prevent workplace exposure of a recognized hazard. Employers should implement feasible hazard controls.

OSHA also identifies certain workplaces that increase the likelihood of worker exposure to measles, including:

  • Healthcare facilities
  • Laboratories
  • Congregate settings (i.e. schools, daycares, detention facilities, assisted living facilities, etc.)
  • High-density workplaces
  • Conducting work outside of the US.
  • In addition, workers who are not vaccinated or have a weakened immune system are more likely to contract measles.

State government agencies may also provide public health information about measles, including state-specific updates. For example, in December 2025, Massachusetts published an alert regarding particular exposures to measles that also provided pertinent public health information, including about vaccination. Employers can consider tasking certain personnel to track such updates.

What should employers do? 

Preparing a plan for a potential measles outbreak for employers can help keep employees and others safe, as well as reduce legal risk.

There are a few steps to consider when managing measles exposure in the workplace.

  • Notify local health departments and the CDC. If an employee contracts measles, it is important to immediately contact your local health department and the CDC. The CDC specifies to notify them of an outbreak within 24 hours by emailing measlesreport@cdc.gov. Local health departments will also likely help with contract tracing, provide resources and further guidance,
  • Send the Infected employee home. Employers should also review the applicable sick time, FMLA, leave and other applicable policies to ensure compliance while employees are out of work.
  • Notify exposed employees and maintain employee privacy. While it is important to notify potentially exposed employees, it is also crucial that employers maintain the privacy of the employee infected with the measles.
  • Follow OSHA guidelines. If a measles outbreak triggers OSHA standards, it is important to review OSHA guidelines and adhere to them. This includes recording cases of measles that are acquired in the workplace, potentially providing PPE and other engineering controls, having BBP measures in place, if applicable, and generally providing a safe working environment for employees.

There are additional acceptable actions available to employers, including:

  • Educating employees. Employers may educate employees on the measles, how to prevent infections, the MMR vaccine, symptoms and exposure. The CDC also offers resources and fliers that can be posted in the workplace.
  • Voluntary vaccinations. Employers may also encourage employees voluntarily to get vaccinated. Employers can provide practical information to employees, such as where to get vaccinated and whether vaccines may be available without cost. Reimbursing for vaccinations is also likely permissible.
  • Train HR. Training can be helpful; conduct training for HR and managers on what to do if a measles exposure is reported so no one is caught flat-footed.
  • Consider remote work options. Where practical, consider remote work options (even on a temporary basis) for those who are quarantined after a measles exposure.

Can an employer require MMR vaccines?

Certain employers, such as healthcare organizations, have long required the MMR vaccine as a condition of employment. However, in recent years there has been increasing polarization around vaccines and, in turn, litigation around mandatory vaccination programs. 

The employer will want to weigh carefully the workplace risk associated with measles and the health and safety benefits of requiring the MMR vaccine. This may involve, for example, reviewing the particular workplace setting, any contact between employees and vulnerable populations and the vaccination rate of the workforce and community.   

Any mandatory vaccination policy should be carefully considered in consultation with counsel, to ensure that it is compliant with federal law as well as the growing number of intersecting laws that have been enacted since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.

By: Anthony Califano, Christina Duszlak, Reeves Gillis, and Nicole Ricker

Seyfarth Synopsis: Connecticut’s new warehouse quota law—effective July 1, 2026—requires employers operating warehouse distribution centers to disclose productivity quotas to non-exempt workers and to maintain detailed work speed data. Employers who fail to provide the required notice may not take an adverse action against an employee for failing to satisfy a quota. The law also prohibits quotas that interfere with meal or bathroom breaks and creates strong anti- retaliation protections for employees. With steep penalties and a private right of action, covered employers must act quickly to review their quota practices, prepare written disclosures, and implement compliant data tracking and notification systems.

On March 3, 2026, Connecticut enacted emergency legislation (S.B. 298) requiring employers that operate warehouse distribution centers in the state to make certain disclosures to non-exempt employees who are subject to production quotas.  This law becomes effective on July 1, 2026, but employers have until August 1, 2026 to distribute mandatory notices.  Violation of the law has significant consequences for employers, including damages incurred by impacted employees due to employer violations, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees.  For covered employers, preparation and caution are advisable.

What this Law Requires

Covered employers must provide employees with a written description of each quota to which they are subject, including any potential adverse employment action that may result from failure to meet each quota.  Current employees must receive this information by August 1, 2026, while employees hired after that date must receive the required notice upon hire.

Whenever an employer makes changes to an existing quota, the employer must notify affected employees as soon as practicable and before the effective date of the new quota.  The employer must also provide a written description of the new quota within two business days after the change is made, either directly to the employee or by email.

Covered employers must also establish, maintain, and preserve (for a period of 3 years) records of the following: (1) each employee’s work speed data, (2) the aggregated work speed data for similar employees at the same warehouse distribution center, and (3) the written description of the quota provided to each employee.  An employer need not retain records of such data if the employer does not assign or require quotas or collect, store, analyze or interpret work speed data.

If an employee believes that satisfying a quota would violate the law, the employee can request copies of these retained records, including each quota to which they are subject and both their individual and the aggregated work speed data from the prior 90 days.  The employer must provide the requested records within 10 calendar days following the employee’s request, and the records must be provided both in English and in the requesting employee’s primary language.  The law does not expressly require that an employee’s request for such records be in writing.

What this Law Prohibits

Productivity quotas may not interfere with an employee’s meal breaks or their use of bathroom facilities (including reasonable travel to and from those facilities).  Further, quotas may not set a performance standard that measures an employee’s total output over an increment of time that is shorter than the employee’s workday or that is based solely on a ranking of the employee’s performance in relation to the performance of other employees.

An employer may not take an adverse action against an employee for failing to satisfy a quota that violates these restrictions or that was not properly disclosed to the employee in accordance with the law’s requirements.

Also, an employer cannot retaliate against an employee for requesting the quota information outlined above or for filing a civil action under the law.  The law creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation for adverse action occurring within 90 days of the employee’s first records request of the calendar year or within 90 days of the employee’s filing of a lawsuit.  If the rebuttable presumption applies, the employer carries the burden of proof to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the adverse action was not retaliatory.

How this Law Defines Employee, Employer, Quota, and Warehouse Distribution Center

Under this new law, an “employee” is defined as a non-exempt individual who is employed at a warehouse distribution center.  Warehouse employees who are exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements are therefore not protected by this law even if subject to quotas.  Non-exempt status shall be determined under this law by reference to the requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  Regardless of non-exempt and exempt status, drivers and couriers traveling to or from a warehouse distribution center are excluded from the definition of “employee” under this law.

And “Employer” is defined under this law as an individual or business entity that “directly or indirectly” “employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of two hundred fifty or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center in [Connecticut] or one thousand or more employees at any one or more warehouse distribution centers in [Connecticut].”

For purposes of this law, a “quota” is defined broadly as a performance standard where:

  • An employee is required to perform at a specified productivity speed or a quantified number of tasks or to handle or produce a quantified amount of within a defined time period;
  • Actions by an employee are categorized or measured between time performing tasks and not performing tasks within a defined time period;
  • Increments of time within a defined time period during which an employee is or is not doing a particular activity are measured, recorded or tallied, or
  • An employee’s performance is ranked in relation to the performance of other employees.

Use of the word “or” in this part of the statute is noteworthy because the disjunctive construction means that any of the above amounts to a “quota.”  It is not necessary for all of them to be present for the law to apply. 

Unlike analogous statutes in other states, such as California, Oregon, and Washington, the language of this Connecticut law does not appear to require the performance standard to be tied to an adverse employment action in order for it to meet the definition of a “quota.”  This means that even when an employee’s failure to meet a performance standard does not have the potential to lead to discipline, a description of that standard must still be provided to the employee.

Also, a “warehouse distribution center” is defined under this law as a warehouse or warehouse complex owned or leased by a company with operations that fall within the scope of certain North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) Codes.  The NAICS codes classify business establishments by their primary economic activity and are used by the federal government to analyze and publish statistical data about the economy.  Establishments that own or lease a warehouse or warehouse complex in Connecticut include:

  • General Warehousing and Storage (NAICS Code 493110);
  • Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods (NAICS Code 423);
  • Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods (NAICS Code 424);
  • Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses (NAICS Code 454110);
  • Couriers and Express Delivery Services (NAICS Code 492110);
  • Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters (NAICS Code 452311);
  • All Other General Merchandise Stores (NAICS Code 452319); and
  • Home Centers (NAICS Code 444110).

An employer can determine whether its business falls into any of these classifications by looking to the NAICS code on its IRS filings or by searching filings for its Connecticut entities here.

Consequences of Non-Compliance by Covered Employers

Employers that violate these new requirements may face civil penalties starting at $1,000 per violation and increasing up to $3,000 per violation.  

The law also creates a private right of action for aggrieved current and former employees, who can recover damages, civil penalties, and injunctive relief.  Attorney’s fees and costs are among the damages available to a prevailing plaintiff in an action under this law.  And the Connecticut Attorney General is authorized to bring claims on behalf of groups of employees.

What Employers Should Do to Prepare

Employers should consider taking proactive steps to prepare for compliance ahead of the July 1, 2026 effective date and the August 1, 2026 notice deadline.  Among those potential steps are the following:

  • Evaluate coverage under this law based on the classification of facilities, number of employees, and quota practices.
  • If covered, prepare written quota disclosures for impacted current and prospective employees prior to the August 1, 2026 compliance deadline.
  • Develop compliant productivity and disciplinary standards.
  • Establish a system for providing written descriptions of new quotas to affected employees whenever quotas are updated.
  • Evaluate or develop protocols for gathering, maintaining, and preserving work speed data.
  • Develop protocols for compliant responses to employee record requests under this law.

By: Ala Salameh and Chelsea Hoffman

Seyfarth Synopsis: In the thick of college basketball season, it’s not just teams updating their playbooks- employers should also take a hard look at their handbooks as well. With rapidly evolving rules around AI, immigration, paid leave, social media, and workplace accommodations, now is the perfect time for a strategic review to avoid running a-foul of local and national laws.

Much like the tournament bracket, the 2026 employment-law landscape is full of new contenders and shifting strategies. States and regulatory agencies are rolling out fresh rules challenging even the best-conditioned teams- particularly in areas shaped by new technologies, political shifts, and changing workplace expectations. We highlight several major developments hitting the workplace in 2026 as consideration for this season’s policy refresh.

  • Artificial Intelligence: Despite the risk of losing federal funding under the Trump Administration’s federal AI Action plan (learn more here), states continue to enact and implement AI laws – several of which take effect this year. Colorado’s AI law, for example, is slated to go live in June 2026, notwithstanding further developments from Colorado’s strained legislature. Under the law, employers using AI may be deemed “deployers” of high-risk AI systems that create the risk of discriminatory employment decisions based on potential bias in the systems’ algorithms (a.k.a. “algorithmic bias”). As such, Colorado employers may demonstrate compliance through adoption of a risk management policy and program, impact assessment, and notice distribution. Similarly, the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) issued draft rules that went into effect in January 2026 governing employers’ use of AI in recruitment, employment opportunity, discipline, and separation. Pursuant to the draft rules, employers are required to provide notice to employees and candidates regarding the use of AI within 30 days of adopting AI-enabled technologies. Texas’ Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (“TRAIGA”) came online in January 2026 as well, barring employers’ use of AI for intentionally discriminatory purposes. Many more states have introduced bills or formed commissions to assess the evolving risks of using artificial intelligence in the employment context. We anticipate that regulation of AI will only expand from here. As AI becomes increasingly integrated across employment-related technologies ranging from targeted recruitment to audio transcription of interviews and meetings, employers should take stock of their systems and ensure corresponding policies are current and compliant.
  • Immigration Protections: In response to the Trump administration’s focus on immigration enforcement, many states enacted laws with heightened immigrant worker protections. As of February 1, 2026, California employers are required to provide all employees and new hires with a “Know Your Rights” notice. The Notice must include a description of workers’ rights as relating to workers’ compensation benefits; right to notice of inspection by immigration agencies; the right to organize a union or otherwise engage in protected activity; fourth and fifth amendment rights when interacting with law enforcement in the workplace; among others. Illinois created and expanded a series of laws including the Public Higher Education Act and the Health Care Sanctity and Privacy Law requiring employer policies and procedures governing workplace interactions with law enforcement agents, and expanded employee protections based on actual or perceived immigration status. In Washington, employees may now used paid sick leave to prepare or appear for their own or a family member’s immigration proceedings. These expanding protections will continue to impact employer obligations relating to privacy, safety planning, remote work accommodations, and leave provisions, requiring employer vigilance in maintaining accurate policies and training.
  • Paid Leave: Because each state may choose its own paid leave adventure, leave policies should also be routinely audited to ensure compliance. In 2026, Delaware, Minnesota, and Maine’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (“PFML”) laws go live. Broadly, PFML programs provide wage replacement during leave taken for medical and safety-related issues of employees and their covered family members. Unlike the unpaid leave granted under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), PFML programs are typically funded through shared employer-employee contributions. Delaware and Minnesota employees began receiving PFML benefits as of January 1, 2026. Maine-based employees will receive their benefits beginning May 1, 2026. Maryland employers will begin withholding employee contributions in January 2027, with benefits becoming available the following year.

    Beyond PFML, Alaska and Nebraska implemented paid sick leave mandates, both allowing employees to earn up to 40 or 56 hours of paid sick time annually depending on the employer’s size. Under both laws, accrued and unused sick time must be carried from one year to the next. Employers with workers in California, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Cook County (IL) should also be mindful of recent changes to their paid leave laws.
  • Protected Characteristics & Shifting Enforcement Priorities: Following the EEOC’s restored quorum in late 2025, the Commission released updated guidance on its enforcement priorities. Specifically, the Commission is shifting its focus to protecting U.S. citizen workers alleging less favorable treatment relative to immigrant workers under Title VII’s national origin protections. The Commission is also pursuing discrimination claims on behalf of white male workers and applicants, and reasserting the right to religious accommodations for faith-based observances and practices. Meanwhile, states and localities continue expanding the characteristics that are protected from adverse employment decisions including hair texture, type, and style (Gwinnett County, GA); height and weight; housing status; justice-impacted status (Wisconsin; Minneapolis, MN); among others. Employers’ policies are charged with reconciling the demands of their localities with the evolving federal regulatory landscape.
    • Social Media: Social and political polarization inevitably spills into the workplace – even when workers post online off-duty. Particularly with both federal and local enforcement priorities noted above, workers across the gamut may feel emboldened to make statements online that are not shared or deemed offensive by colleagues, customers, and community members. Meanwhile, states like California, Connecticut, Colorado, New York, South Carolina, and Wyoming protect employees from discipline for off-duty conduct or political activity. Employers have the unenviable tasks of creating and effectuating policies that can balance what are often competing interests and claims on the head of a pin. Carefully crafted and contemplated social media policies can help navigate this challenging landscape.

As employers advance through this year’s compliance tournament, now is the time to make sure workplace policies are ready for the full-court press. From AI governance to immigration protections, paid leave expansion, evolving antidiscrimination standards, and employee speech, the compliance demands on employers continue to rise. Seyfarth’s Handbooks & Policy Development team is equipped to support employers in reviewing their playbooks and executing the right strategy to come out on top this season.

By Gary D. Friedman, Esteban Shardonofsky, Linda C. Schoonmaker, and Julia M. Tape

This blog has been updated to slightly modify content.

In a decision that is likely to surprise many employers who have mandatory pre-dispute arbitration programs where they have obtained the unequivocal assent of their employees to arbitrate their disputes, a federal appeals court held that notwithstanding that assent, the failure of an employer to countersign the agreement where the arbitration contract specifically called for mutual signatures rendered the agreement unenforceable, and therefore permitted the case to proceed in court. Specifically, in Mertens v. Benelux Corp., No. 24‑50954 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a non-countersigned arbitration agreement was unenforceable where the agreement expressly required signatures from both the employee and employer, and the employer never signed it, even though its failure to do so was purely an administrative error. The historically pro-arbitration Fifth Circuit found unavailing that the employer’s failure to countersign was inadvertent and that both parties’ conduct evidenced acceptance of the arbitration agreement. This decision is a cautionary tale for employers that courts will, indeed, construe language in an arbitration agreement against the drafter (typically the employer) and that failure to comply with its terms, even where both parties otherwise indicate an intent to be bound, will result in the agreement being rendered unenforceable.

Factual and Procedural Background

Mertens involved an FLSA collective action brought by waitstaff employees against Benelux Corporation, which operated a business in Austin, Texas. The Fifth Circuit addressed the arbitration agreement issues only as to representative plaintiffs, Mertens and Cadena, whose agreements were the ones containing the signature defects at issue.

Benelux distributed an arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”) which, on the last page, provided, in pertinent part, that:

By signing this arbitration agreement, Employee and the Club’s representative represent that:

  • They have fully read this agreement prior to signing it;
  • They have been provided a copy of this agreement and have had opportunities to ask questions regarding its content and have it reviewed by persons of their choice, including by attorneys and accountants, before they have signed it; and
  • They understand the terms of this agreement and agree to be bound by them. (emphasis added).

Significantly, the mutual representations that were recited and the fact that there were two signature blocks—one for the employee and one for the employer’s representative—would prove significant in the Court’s decision. Representative plaintiffs, Mertens and Cadena, mistakenly signed both signature boxes in the document—the one designated for employees as well as the one designated for the employer. As a result of that error, Benelux’s general manager—who customarily countersigned these Agreements—did not sign in the employer box, later testifying that he mistakenly believed another company representative had already done so.

Both the magistrate judge and the district court concluded that the Agreement unambiguously required signatures from both parties to be effective.

The Fifth Circuit’s Analysis: When a Contract Requires Dual Signatures, Both Must Be Present

In reviewing the issue, the Fifth Circuit focused on the contract’s express language, homing in on the mutual intent to be bound and execution elements for contract formation. Looking at the parties’ mutual intent, the Fifth Circuit stated that, although signatures are not a requirement of mutual intent, when the express language indicates that both signatures are required, a missing signature renders the agreement unenforceable. The Court found several textual indicators in the Agreement that mutual signatures were required: (1) The Agreement repeatedly referred to representations made “by signing” by “Employee and the Club’s representative;” (2) the use of the plural—“they”—signaled mutual obligations; and (3) two signature blocks appeared at the bottom of the Agreement.

Importantly, the Court rejected Benelux’s argument that requiring both signatures could not be a condition precedent because the Agreement did not expressly state that both parties “must” or “shall” sign. The Fifth Circuit explained that Texas law does not require such magic words; rather, the Agreement’s own language—stating that both the “Employee and the Club’s representative” make certain representations “by signing”—was enough to demonstrate that mutual signatures were required.

Benelux also argued that its conduct—drafting, distributing, collecting, and seeking to enforce the Agreement—demonstrated its intent to be bound. The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument outright. The Court stated that when a contract itself specifies that signatures are required, extrinsic evidence of conduct cannot substitute for the missing execution. The Fifth Circuit was also not moved by the fact that the two representative plaintiffs clearly intended to be bound by the arbitration agreement, including signing in both boxes and initialing each page.  Even though there was “offer and acceptance,” the “execution” element was missing to make the contract binding.

Why This Case Matters: The Practical Problem Many Employers Face

Mertens stands out because, as noted above, the Fifth Circuit is traditionally arbitration‑friendly. Yet the Court refused to compel arbitration because the Agreement’s own language required signatures from both parties—even though both plaintiffs admitted they signed both signature blocks.

Another notable point is that the Court did not lean on any presumption in favor of arbitration. Instead, it first addressed formation—whether a valid arbitration agreement existed. In doing so, the Court did not apply the presumption of arbitrability.

This is a harsh reminder that courts will enforce signature requirements as written, even when the failure to sign appears to be a simple administrative mistake and both parties have otherwise indicated an intent to be bound by the agreement. The decision also reflects heightened judicial scrutiny of formation and consent before courts will apply the presumption favoring arbitrability.

Practice Pointers for Employers

1. Avoid drafting arbitration agreements that expressly require both parties’ signatures.

If an agreement states that “by signing” both parties agree to be bound, a missing signature from either party may render the agreement unenforceable. Consider drafting the agreement as a unilateral agreement by removing the employer’s signature block to avoid potential ambiguity on this issue—as long as there is already clear language in the agreement of the employer’s intention to be bound. Once the agreement is signed by the employee, both parties should be bound by the agreement.

2. If signatures are required, assign responsibility and implement controls.

Designate a company representative to sign these agreements and ensure they are consistently executed. Administrative oversights or a potential mutual mistake cannot be cured after the fact.

3. Recognize that different language could lead to a different outcome.

Had the agreement indicated acceptance by continued employment or required only the employee’s signature, the result may have been different.

4. Audit your forms and onboarding processes.

This case highlights a common problem: employers rely on employee signatures and assume their silence or issuance of the form conveys acceptance. Under agreements like this one, that assumption can prove costly.

By Gina Gi and Daniel Whang

Seyfarth Synopsis: In Steven Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, 114 Cal.App.5th 200 (2025), the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District held that an employer’s response, or lack thereof, to an employee complaint of offsite harassment is sufficient to state a claim for hostile work environment, even when that off-site harassment by a nonsupervisory employee was not work-related and not imputable to the employer. Human Resources’ mocking and management’s refusal to act were enough to create a cognizable hostile work environment claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

The Alleged Harassment Occurred Offsite and Off-Duty

The plaintiff worked as an assistant corporate compliance officer for Bakersfield Recovery Services (“BRS”), which provides substance abuse treatment to recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. Plaintiff’s responsibilities required him to oversee client services, train staff, and to oversee the construction of a new facility being designed for clients.

Plaintiff was responsible for training and overseeing the alleged harasser, Sanders, at a new BRS facility. In 2023, while Plaintiff was on a leave of absence, Sanders sent Plaintiff multiple unsolicited nude pictures and stated that she wanted to have sex with him. Sanders also went to Plaintiff’s home uninvited and indicated she was there to have sex with him. Sanders eventually departed, but left a cucumber with a condom attached on his driveway. Sanders also texted Plaintiff and invited him to a hotel room to have sex and offered him drugs. In all these occasions, Plaintiff firmly rejected her advances and told her to leave him alone and stop harassing him.

Immediately upon returning from leave, Plaintiff complained to the program director, who told him that there was not much she could do about Sanders’ behavior. He also complained to a human resources representative, who later posted a video on social media depicting whining dogs and stated, “This is a work day at the office … lmbo [laughing my butt off].”  There was nothing suggesting that this post was referring to Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff merely felt that it was directed at him. The program manager and human resources representative did not take any steps to separate Plaintiff from Sanders to prevent future harassment, nor take any disciplinary action as to Sanders. Plaintiff went to great lengths to try to avoid contact with Sanders after, but feared he would see her at the worksite. Plaintiff resigned just one week after his complaint, claiming extreme distress, anger, and humiliation, as BRS did not do anything to condemn Sanders’ conduct.

Totality of Circumstances Test In Deciding Whether Harassing Conduct Is Imputable to The Employer

As a matter of first impression, the Court noted that it found no cases arising under the FEHA which explored whether the harassing conduct of a nonsupervisory coworker occurring away from the workplace is imputable to the employer. As a result, it turned to analogous federal authority under the Title VII context for instruction. Like FEHA, under Title VII, for conduct to be imputable to the employer, it must bear a sufficient nexus to the workplace. The Court analyzed various federal court cases finding liability for offsite conduct, including where the employer airline company paid for a block of hotel rooms for the flight crew where the rape eventually occurred during off-duty hours, and another where the plaintiff and her coworker attended training and then drank at a bar at the employer’s training facility, and was later raped offsite after a coworker offered her a ride back to her hotel, since the bar was part of the training facility and the event could be said to have grown out of the workplace environment.  Together, these cases provide persuasive guidance that the work-related nature of conduct is examined under the totality of circumstances.

From the federal authorities, the Court gleaned a number of nondispositive factors relevant to the assessment: (1) whether the harassing conduct occurred in or through a venue or modality that was paid for or hosted by the employer, (2) from circumstances the employer arranged, sanctioned, or approved, (3) in a context where the employer could be expected to obtain some benefit, or (4) in the context of employment-related social circumstances where it would be expected the employees would interact and socialize. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that in the Title VII context, the relevant question is not whether the harassing conduct occurred on or off the physical or digital worksite, but whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the “harassing conduct had an unreasonable effect on the working environment and, if so, to consider whether and how the employer responded to that effect.”  Okonowsky v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1166, 1180 (9th Cir. 2024).

Here, the Court analyzed these nondispositive factors and found the harassment could not be imputed to BRS because the allegations concerning Sanders’ conduct did not occur from a workplace modality that BRS provided or sanctioned explicitly or implicitly – i.e., a cell phone or email provided by the employer, and Sanders’ unwanted sexual advances did not occur in the context of a work-related event or derive from work-related social circumstances where employees would foreseeably interact. The mere fact that Sanders and Plaintiff knew each other only through work did not make Sanders’ conduct work related. Finally, the Court was unpersuaded by the argument that Plaintiff’s complaint to his supervisors retroactively rendered Sanders’ conduct work-related. If that were the case, anything an employee did outside of work would be work related so long as a coworker subsequently reported it.

The Employer’s Failure To Act And HR’s Conduct Could Support A Hostile Work Environment Claim

Again looking to guidance from federal cases analyzing Title VII, the Court found that in the context of FEHA cases, an employer’s response to harassment occurring outside the physical or digital work environment can independently create a hostile work environment.  In Fuller v. Idaho Dept. of Corrections, 865 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2017), the plaintiff was raped outside the workplace by her coworker, and the Court held the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to the existence of a hostile work environment by alleging the employer’s reactions to the rapes – effectively punishing plaintiff for taking time off, while both vocally and financially supporting her rapist – and that this could have altered her work environment.

Relying on Fuller, the Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations that human resources’ comment and social media post mocking him, in conjunction with BRS’ ratification of Sanders’ conduct through inaction, through his supervisor’s comment that the company would not take any action in response to the complaint because it occurred offsite, materially altered his working conditions.

The Court acknowledged that while Sanders’ conduct did not amount to sexual assault like the rape alleged in Fuller, the totality of the circumstances alleged was sufficient to have altered the Plaintiff’s working environment in an objectively severe manner, thereby stating a hostile work environment claim that should survive a demurrer. The totality of the circumstances included Plaintiff’s supervisor’s statement that there was not much that could be done, the lack of investigation and admonition to Sanders, the alleged mocking and sarcastic comments by human resources, and the failure to take any steps to shield Plaintiff from having to interact with Sanders. The Court concluded that a reasonable person could understand from BRS’ response that it viewed what Sanders had done as not serious; that Plaintiff, as a man, should not be affected by sexual advances from a woman; and that Plaintiff’s well-being in the workplace was of no import to BRS. 

Employers should not dismiss complaints simply because the conduct occurred offsite and off-duty. Responses to such complaints should always be considered on a case-by-case basis and should consider all of the circumstances.

Episode 02: Inside Cultural Assessments – Tools for Navigating Today’s Polarized Workplace

Hosted by Sam Schwartz-Fenwick with special guest Dave Baffa

In this episode of the Cultural Flashpoints Vidcast, host Sam Schwartz‑Fenwick sits down with Seyfarth partner and workplace culture subject‑matter expert Dave Baffa for a candid discussion on cultural assessments: what they are, why they matter, and how their use has evolved alongside shifting workplace dynamics.

Together, Sam and Dave break down the methods organizations use to understand their cultural health, from interviews and focus groups to policy evaluations that reveal how communication, leadership, and day‑to‑day interactions truly function in practice. They also share insights on how cultural assessments can help reduce tension, foster psychological safety, and build stronger organizational trust – all while offering practical guidance for managing risk, setting expectations, and ensuring assessments lead to meaningful action.

By: Romtin Parvaresh and Daniel Whang

There is truth to the proverb that “a closed mouth catches no flies.” In Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University, 3rd App. Dist. C102901 (Jan. 15, 2026), the defendants sat silent when the trial court set a trial date after the five-year statutory deadline to bring a case to trial. Once the deadline passed, they successfully moved to dismiss. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that a non-objection to an untimely trial date does not constitute an express agreement to extend the deadline.

Facts and Procedural History

Randolph was an employment lawsuit filed in 2019. At a March 2024 conference, the trial court set a trial date of February 2025. However, the statutory deadline for trial was October 2024. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.310 (“An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.”).

After October 2024 passed, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to timely bring the case to trial. Dismissal is mandatory unless a statutory exception applies. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.360. One such exception is an “oral agreement made in open court.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.360(b).

Citing this exception, the plaintiff argued that the parties “verbally stipulated” to the February 2025 trial date at the March 2024 conference. The plaintiff relied on a minute order from the conference that notes the appearances of counsel and the case dates that were set. It contained no further information.

The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. It found that the scarce information in the minute order did not show that the defendants orally agreed to a trial date beyond the statutory deadline. It also criticized the plaintiff for not objecting to an untimely trial date.

The California Court of Appeal Holds That Mere Silence Does Not Amount to an “Oral Stipulation” to Extend the Statutory Deadline

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal. It held that courts may not infer that a defendant expressly agrees to a trial date merely because “a minute order is silent as to any discussion relating to the trial date.” (Emphasis in original.)

The sole question for appeal was whether the plaintiff established the “oral stipulation” exception to preclude mandatory dismissal. Under that exception, the parties may extend the statutory deadline to bring a case to trial by “oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.360(b).

As the Court of Appeal held, this exception was not met. Because there was no transcript from the March 2024 conference when the trial date was set, the only alternative source for the exception would be a minute order. However, the minute order did not indicate an “agreement” to a trial date beyond the statutory deadline. Instead, it merely shows that counsel appeared and the dates that were set.

The Court of Appeal distinguished Randolph from Nunn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 64 Cal. App. 5th 346 (2021), which applied the oral exception to extend the statutory deadline. Nunn involved a settled statement that contained detailed facts from a trial setting conference. As reflected in the settled statement, the trial court suggested a trial date within the five-year deadline, but the defendants said the proposed date was “too early” because they needed to depose the plaintiff and then file a dispositive motion. When the trial court proposed an alternative trial date after the deadline, both parties “had no objection.” The Court of Appeal held that an “oral agreement” was made, because the exchange between the trial court and the parties expressed “mutual consent” to extend the deadline to bring the case to trial, specifically to accommodate the defendants.

By contrast, the minute order in Randolph was starkly different. It contained no detail regarding conversations about the trial date and accordingly could not show any “mutual assent” to extend the statutory deadline to bring the case to trial. The Court rejected the argument that the defendants’ non-objection to a trial date after the statutory deadline is sufficient to create an oral stipulation to extend the deadline. The Court reaffirmed that the exception requires that the oral stipulation be shown in a minute order or in a transcript, neither of which was present. 

Impact of Randolph

Randolph shows that it is the obligation of plaintiffs – not defendants – to object to a trial date that falls beyond the statutory deadline to bring a case to trial. If a defendant sits silent when a date is set, that silence does not prevent them from later seeking to dismiss for failure to timely try the case.

By: Adam R. Young, Jennifer L. Mora, and Frederick T. Smith

Seyfarth Synopsis: President Trump’s December 2025 Executive Order signals a possible shift in federal marijuana policy, but many employers still have a lawful and legitimate basis to prohibit impairment at work. Employers that test for marijuana should continue to monitor legal developments and evolving legal risk. Moreover, because employees may not fully understand the implications of the Executive Order, employers should remind employees of their policy expectations.

Since 1970, marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, defined as having no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Over the years, presidents have floated the idea of reclassifying marijuana, but not taken steps to do so. In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) determined that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use, and DHHS recommended to the Drug Enforcement Agency that marijuana be classified as a Schedule III drug.   In May 2024 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) published a formal proposal to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug. Schedule III drugs are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Agency, and they include acetaminophen (Tylenol) with codeine, ketamine, anabolic steroids, and testosterone. The slow rescheduling process is currently in process and awaiting an administrative law hearing.

On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order, “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research.” In it, he directed the DOJ to expedite the process of rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. While this EO perhaps signals an intent to expedite and take political credit for the rulemaking process, rescheduling timeline remains uncertain..

This rescheduling marks a significant policy change and the practical implications for employers—particularly those with safety-sensitive workforces—remain complex. However, the proposed rescheduling of marijuana will not result in the  legalization of  recreational use.

The EO also tasked White House staff and Congress with “updat[ing] the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.” Moreover, the EO tasked certain agencies with developing guidelines for hemp-derived cannabinoids, including specific limits on THC milligrams per serving and container, as well as required CBD-to-THC ratios.

Workplace Implications

Many states and several localities have laws regulating drug policies and drug testing and providing protections to recreational and medicinal marijuana users. Accordingly, employers must be cognizant of the specific landscape for their work forces. Even after rescheduling, employers will still be able to prohibit marijuana use and impairment in the workplace. Employers with drug testing programs who test for marijuana (THC metabolites) will not be prohibited from doing so by the rescheduling (but must remain mindful of restrictions and other limitations per applicable state and local law) .

For many employers, the risks of impairment remain unchanged. The National Safety Council has long endorsed a zero-tolerance policy, emphasizing that no level of cannabis use is safe for employees, especially those working in roles where safety is paramount. That said, because no drug test can prove time of impairment, employers in states with overly restrictive marijuana testing laws will continue to grapple with balancing the risk of an employment claim against the risk of a workplace injuries due to drug use.

Legal Risks and ADA Considerations

Rescheduling may open the door to new challenges by applicants and employee s under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Historically, courts have consistently rejected ADA accommodation claims tied to individuals’ medical marijuana use because marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law. Once marijuana is classified as a Schedule III drug, employees may argue for ADA protections, creating potential litigation risk for employers. To date, most failure to accommodate marijuana claims have been brought under state disability discrimination statutes and other laws, so it remains to be seen whether reclassifying marijuana will lead to a significant increase in such claims.

Practical Steps for Employers

To prepare for this evolving regulatory and legal environment, employers should consider the following:

  • Review and update drug testing policies to ensure they address marijuana impairment if appropriate.
  • Reconsider policies for safety-sensitive positions, consistent with industry recommendations.
  • Train supervisors and human resources staff on recognizing and responding to impairment and handling accommodation requests.
  • Consult legal counsel regarding ADA risks and potential state-law claims tied to medical marijuana use.
  • Communicate clearly with employees about company expectations and the continued prohibition of use and impairment at work.
  • Monitor DOJ rulemaking and state-level developments to stay ahead of compliance requirements.
  • Educate employees to ensure they understand the implications of the EO.

For additional questions on this topic or any other workplace safety inquiry, please contact your Seyfarth attorney.

Episode 01: Navigating Faith-Based Employee Resource Groups in Today’s Workplace

Hosted by Dawn Solowey with special guest Annette Tyman

In this premiere episode of the Cultural Flashpoints Vidcast, host Dawn Solowey sits down with Annette Tyman, chair of the People Analytics Practice Group, to explore one of the most dynamic trends shaping workplace culture: faith-based employee resource groups (ERGs). From their origins in fostering inclusion to their evolving role in supporting diverse identities, ERGs have become a cornerstone of engagement and belonging. This conversation dives deep into the growing interest in faith-based ERGs and why they matter now more than ever.

Employers tuning in will gain practical insights on balancing inclusion with legal compliance, setting clear guardrails, and creating frameworks that work for their unique organizations. With cultural and legal landscapes shifting rapidly, this episode offers actionable guidance for leaders who want to foster community while mitigating risk. Whether you’re considering ERGs for the first time or reevaluating existing policies, this discussion is essential listening for anyone committed to building a respectful, inclusive workplace.

By: Olivia S. Williams, Grayson Moronta, and Christina Meddin

Seyfarth Synopsis

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision Ismael v. Roundtree, No. 25-10604 (11th Cir. Dec. 5, 2025) reversed the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants and held “the District Court improperly conflated the McDonnell Douglas pretext analysis and the ‘convincing mosaic’ standard.” In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed that summary judgment turns on the ultimate question of discriminatory or retaliatory intent – not whether a plaintiff can successfully dismantle an employer’s explanation. The Court provided guidance for evaluating employment discrimination and retaliation claims at the summary judgment stage, and specifically instructed district courts to consider whether a plaintiff has provided sufficient circumstantial evidence that creates a convincing mosaic of discrimination or retaliation when a plaintiff cannot establish the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case and when a plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the employer’s proffered rationale is pretextual.

Factual and Procedural Background

This case stems from Ahmed Ismael’s (“Ismael”) employment with the Richmond County Sherriff’s Office (“RCSO”) as a deputy sheriff. Ismael, who is of Iraqi Arabic descent, alleged RCSO terminated his employment in retaliation for filing a harassment complaint. Ismael’s harassment complaint included allegations that a lieutenant, who was assigned to the same detail as Ismael and was the Commander of the RCSO SWAT Team Ismael hoped to join, continuously made racist remarks including calling Ismael a “terrorist,” telling him to “go play in the sand,” and warning their colleagues Ismael “may have a bomb.” Eight days after Ismael filed his harassment complaint, his employment was terminated for violating the RCSO’s “Manner of Conduct” policy when he allegedly: (i) visited Burke County in his patrol car to inquire about employment opportunities while still on Richmond County time; and (ii) visited Burke County in his patrol car to interview for a position.

In his lawsuit, Ismael made claims of retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and conspiracy to deprive him of equal protection under the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. After amending his original complaint twice, Ismael retained only his § 1981 claim. Defendants moved for summary judgment and, in response, Ismael presented circumstantial evidence in support of his claim. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on its finding that although Ismael established a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, Defendants properly articulated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Ismael’s termination and Ismael “‘failed to prove’ that the defendants’ articulated reason was a pretext for retaliation.”

The Court’s Untangling of  the McDonnell Douglas Pretext Analysis and the Convincing Mosaic Standard

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit expounds its view of the relationship between the McDonnell Douglas framework and the convincing mosaic standard, referring to the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Co v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, (1973) as “famous yet ill-understood.” The three-part evidentiary burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas includes the following steps: (i) the employee must demonstrate a prima facie case[1]; (ii) the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action; and (iii) if the employer provides a legitimate reason, the employee has the opportunity to demonstrate that the employer’s proffered rationale is pretextual.

But as the Eleventh Circuit emphasized, McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary aid – not a substantive rule – and its failure does not end the summary judgment inquiry. Rather, as the Court held in Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2011), (1) “a ‘plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if he presents circumstantial evidence that creates a triable issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory intent’ and (2)  that a ‘triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker.” The Court’s holding in Smith is often referred to as the “convincing mosaic standard.” Despite confusion regarding the creation and application of the convincing mosaic standard, the Court over time has made it clear that this standard is “a stand-in” or “rearticulation of the summary judgment standard” that should be applied to employment discrimination and retaliation claims. Thus, a plaintiff who cannot establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas is nonetheless still entitled to a full review under the convincing mosaic standard.

Here, the District Court found Ismael met his prima facie burden and therefore proceeded to evaluate steps two and three of the McDonnell Douglas framework. After finding Ismael failed to raise an inference of pretext at step three, the Eleventh Circuit explained that the District Court improperly declined to analyze the evidence Ismael presented under the convincing mosaic standard. In doing so, the District Court had reasoned that a separate analysis would be redundant because “‘the terms pretext, convincing mosaic, and summary judgment are substantively the same thing’ and . . . ‘the pretext prong . . . is the same as the ordinary summary judgment standard.’” The Eleventh Circuit not only rejected the District Court’s reasoning, but clarified that in order to establish pretext, a plaintiff must show the employer’s proffered reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason for the adverse employment action. Notably, the latter requirement is focused on the same inquiry as the convincing mosaic standard whereas the former requirement is not. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit held it would be erroneous for a court to require a plaintiff to negate a defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to defeat a motion for summary judgment because: (i) this is not required to succeed at trial; and (ii) it takes away from the plaintiff’s affirmative case that the driving cause for the adverse employment action was illegal discrimination or retaliation.

Ultimately, because the District Court analyzed Ismael’s retaliation claim only through the McDonnell Douglas pretext lens, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case with instruction to the District Court to apply the correct summary judgment standard which requires the District Court to ask whether Ismael’s circumstantial evidence, when artfully adhered together and viewed as one, allows a reasonable juror to envision an image of retaliation and find in Ismael’s favor.

Looking Ahead: The Eleventh Circuit’s Roadmap for Review of Summary Judgment Motions

In an effort to stop courts from “find[ing] new ways to incorrectly apply the framework as a substantive doctrine”, the Eleventh Circuit provided a roadmap based on whether a plaintiff can or cannot demonstrate a prima facie case.

Under the Eleventh Circuit’s roadmap, if a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case, they are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of illicit intent. If the defendant is able to present evidence that successfully rebuts the presumption, the court must ask whether the evidence presented by the plaintiff presents a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination or retaliation by the decisionmaker. Indeed, a showing of pretext (or lack thereof) would be relevant to the court’s inquiry. However, a plaintiff’s inability to disprove the defendant’s rationale cannot be the sole grounds for summary judgment.

On the other hand, if a plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case, they do not automatically lose summary judgment by default. “[T]he consequence is that the plaintiff must produce enough evidence, on their own and without any helpful evidentiary burdens or presumptions, to demonstrate a material issue of triable fact.” Simply put, the court should immediately engage in the convincing mosaic inquiry.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Although the plaintiffs’ bar may characterize Ismael as a significant expansion of employee protections, the Eleventh Circuit did not establish a new framework or a new standard for evaluating summary judgment motions in employment discrimination and/or retaliation cases. Rather, the Court provided clarity and practical guidance regarding the coexistence and application of the longstanding McDonnell Douglas pretext analysis and the convincing mosaic inquiry.

As has always been the “rule,” employers cannot rely solely on the McDonnell Douglas pretext analysis to prevail on a motion for summary judgment. Because the Eleventh Circuit has reiterated to district courts that they must consider the entire convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence (even when pretext cannot be conclusively negated), employers should continue ensuring any adverse employment actions are well documented and that employees are treated consistently with respect to company policies. The Ismael opinion highlights that inconsistent documentation, or the misapplication of company policies (even among those employees not traditionally considered “comparators”), could contribute to the “mosaic” that supports a plaintiff’s discrimination and/or retaliation claim. In particular with respect to retaliation claims, the decision also is a strong reminder of the importance of separating decision-makers from employee complaints and the investigation process. And finally, training supervisors on appropriate workplace behavior remains crucial.

Contact a member of the Seyfarth team to learn more about how employers can better navigate employment discrimination and retaliation laws, reduce litigation risk, and foster a compliant workplace environment.

  • [1] To establish a prima facie retaliation claim, “a plaintiff must show that: (i) they engaged in a protected activity; (ii) that they suffered a material adverse employment action; and (iii) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.”