Three administrations, multiple rules, and still no settled federal standard on joint employment. The DOL’s new proposed rule is the latest attempt to end that uncertainty. TL;DR: The U.S. Department of Labor has proposed a new rule establishing a single nationwide standard for determining joint employer status under the FLSA, FMLA, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). The proposal sets out separate analyses for “horizontal” and “vertical” joint employment, adopts a four-factor test for vertical scenarios, and explicitly identifies business practices — including franchisor relationships, shared safety policies, and quality control standards — that do not, on their own, create joint employer liability. The 60-day comment period closes June 22, 2026. 📄 Read the proposed rule | Summary | Q&A Five Years Without a Rulebook Since the Biden administration rescinded the 2020 joint employer rule in July 2021, the Department of Labor has had no generally applicable FLSA regulation on joint employment. According to the DOL, its investigators have been applying a vertical joint employment standard consistent with applicable circuit precedent — which varies substantially across the federal circuits. The horizontal standard, by contrast, reflects the Department’s longstanding enforcement policy and is less of a departure from current practice. If finalized, the rule would govern how DOL investigators assess joint employer status nationwide under the FLSA, FMLA, and MSPA — all of which share the same statutory definitions of employment. Courts are not required to defer to the DOL’s interpretation, but a well-reasoned final rule may influence judicial analysis over time. Vertical vs. Horizontal: Two Different Questions The proposal distinguishes between two structurally different joint employment scenarios. In horizontal joint employment, an employee works separate hours for two employers in the same workweek, and the question is whether those employers are sufficiently associated to be deemed joint employers. Sharing a vendor or being co-franchisees of the same franchisor is not, by itself, enough. In vertical joint employment — the scenario that generates most of the litigation — a single employee works one set of hours that simultaneously benefits two entities, such as a staffing agency client or a general contractor above a subcontractor. The rule proposes a four-factor test for vertical cases: whether the potential joint employer (1) hires or fires the employee; (2) supervises and controls the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree; (3) determines the employee’s rate and method of payment; and (4) maintains the employee’s employment records. A unanimous finding on all four factors in either direction establishes a “substantial likelihood” on joint employer status. The proposal also clarifies that reserved control — a contractual right to supervise or discipline that is never actually exercised — carries less weight than control that is actually practiced. What Won’t Make You a Joint Employer This is the part most employers will want to bookmark. The proposal explicitly identifies business practices that, standing alone, do not make joint employer status more or less likely: requiring anti-harassment policies or background checks through a contract, providing a sample employee handbook to another employer, offering an association health plan, participating in a joint apprenticeship program, operating as a franchisor, and imposing quality control standards to protect brand reputation. These carve-outs give companies operating through franchisees, subcontractors, and staffing arrangements meaningful clarity that routine brand protection and compliance coordination won’t automatically drag them into joint employer territory. These changes represent a genuine shift from the 2020 rule, and employers with complex business structures should map their relationships against the new four-factor framework before the final rule takes effect. What Employers Should Think Through Now The four-factor test rewards documentation of actual practice, not just contracts Because reserved control matters less than exercised control, a franchise agreement that reserves the right to supervise employees is less relevant than whether a franchisor actually directed the day-to-day work. Employers should document who actually makes hiring, scheduling, and pay decisions — not just what the contract says. Staffing agency and subcontractor arrangements face the most scrutiny Vertical joint employment is where the real exposure sits. If a client employer’s personnel routinely set schedules, approve timesheets, or direct daily tasks for workers placed by a staffing agency, all four factors point toward joint employment. Audit those arrangements now and clarify the division of supervisory authority before the rule finalizes. The FMLA alignment creates new compliance math for secondary employers Because the proposal aligns the FLSA vertical analysis with the FMLA, an employer that qualifies as a vertical joint employer under the four-factor test may also need to count jointly employed workers toward FMLA coverage thresholds and potentially bear job restoration obligations. The overlap is not automatic, but it requires a closer look at arrangements where one employer supplies workers to another. The comment period closes June 22, 2026. If your business model depends on franchising, staffing agency relationships, or subcontracting, this is one proposal worth submitting comments on — because the final rule will set the enforcement framework investigators will use.

He may not have an office to assume if the legislature moves to eliminate the clerk of criminal court. But on Tuesday, Calvin Duncan was sworn into the office, to reflect the will of the electorate, he said. [...] Read More... from Duncan takes oath of office The post Duncan takes oath of office appeared first on The Lens.

According to the EEOC, a waste management company hadn’t hired a female garbage truck driver in years, and its interviews showed why: a manager told one qualified female applicant to think carefully, talk to her husband, and let him know if she still wanted the job. She did. The company hired a man. The case settled for $200,000. This week is EEOC Settlement Week on The Employer Handbook: one recent EEOC settlement per day, with practical takeaways for employers. Today is the final installment: a $200,000 Title VII consent decree over a waste management company’s alleged pattern of rejecting qualified female applicants for driver positions. TL;DR: According to the EEOC’s complaint, a waste management company told a qualified female applicant during her interview that it had no female drivers, would have to build a women’s shower if it hired her, and that she should talk to her husband before deciding. She followed up; the employer went silent, sent a generic rejection, and hired a less-qualified male. EEO-1 data showed near-zero female drivers for four consecutive years. The EEOC sued under Title VII and the case settled for $200,000 just weeks before trial. 📄 Read the EEOC press release She Had More Experience Than the Man Who Got the Job. She Also Got Told to Talk to Her Husband. According to the complaint, the applicant applied for a front loader garbage truck driver position at the employer’s Springfield, Missouri facility in April 2020. She had more CDL experience, more large commercial truck driving experience, and had held her CDL longer than the male candidate ultimately selected. The interview was conducted by the operations manager and two other male representatives. According to the complaint, the men told her no female drivers were currently employed, noted that a prior female driver had quit without notice, and said the company would have to build a women’s shower if it hired a female driver. After a ride-along, the operations manager told her to think seriously about the job, talk to her husband, and call the next day. She did. She left a voicemail and sent a text. According to the complaint, no one responded. She received a generic rejection email and the employer hired a male for the position. The complaint also alleged that EEO-1 data showed 54 to 59 male drivers per year from 2018 to 2021 and no female drivers in three of the four years, and that excluding women from driver positions was the employer’s standard operating procedure. The EEOC sued in September 2023. The parties settled through a consent decree entered April 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, just weeks before trial. The $200,000 covers the primary plaintiff and four additional aggrieved applicants, and the three-year decree requires standardized interview questions, an applicant tracking system, annual Title VII training, and semi-annual EEOC reporting. The Interview Did Most of the Work for the EEOC Three things worth taking from what happened in that interview room: Telling an applicant to consult her husband before deciding is sex stereotyping Title VII prohibits employment decisions rooted in sex-based assumptions, including assumptions about household decision-making. This kind of comment doesn’t require discriminatory intent to create liability. Interviewers need to know which topics are prohibited, not just which outcomes are forbidden. The shower comment was not a neutral operational observation Framing a female applicant’s candidacy around the accommodations her gender requires signals that hiring a woman is a burden. Courts and the EEOC treat this as evidence of discriminatory intent. If an interviewer’s first reaction to a female applicant is to identify the complications her gender creates, that needs to be in training before it ends up in a deposition. EEO-1 data can turn a single rejection into a pattern-or-practice claim Four consecutive years of near-zero female representation in a job category is not just a compliance metric. In a discrimination case, it becomes evidence. Employers who don’t monitor workforce composition by job category may not see a pattern-or-practice problem developing until the EEOC identifies it for them. This case settled weeks before trial. The facts in the complaint are the kind that tend to resonate with juries.

A weekend schedule change. A Sunday church conflict. And apparently no one at the company thought to have a conversation about it. TL;DR: According to a new EEOC lawsuit, an employer violated Title VII by changing an employee’s schedule to weekends, ignoring his religious objection, and effectively forcing him to resign. The alleged failure to engage in any accommodation dialogue, combined with a “take it or leave it” approach, is the entire case. 📄 Read the EEOC press release A three-year weekday schedule allegedly became a weekend ultimatum According to the complaint, the employee worked as a part-time security guard for about three years on a steady Tuesday-through-Thursday morning schedule. He allegedly performed well, received a raise, and maintained the needed certifications. Then, in February 2024, his supervisor changed the schedule to two 12-hour shifts on Saturday and Sunday. That change allegedly created an immediate religious conflict. The employee, a Baptist deacon who attended church on Sundays, told his supervisor he could not work the new schedule for religious reasons. He then sent an email, copying HR, stating that he was accepting the schedule under protest because of his religious rights. The EEOC says no one took ownership of the issue According to the lawsuit, the supervisor did not ask follow-up questions, did not explore alternatives, and did not coordinate with HR about a possible accommodation. HR allegedly did not fix that problem. Instead, after the employee called HR and explained the Sunday church conflict, HR allegedly referred him back to the supervisor rather than engaging in any accommodation dialogue. The EEOC also alleges that the company provided no form, no guidance, and no real process for requesting a religious accommodation. Meanwhile, the employee’s prior shifts allegedly were given to another guard. When the schedule was not changed back, the employee took leave and resigned rather than work the weekend shift. Why this becomes a Title VII problem fast Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would create an undue hardship. The EEOC’s theory here is straightforward: once the employee raised a religious conflict, the employer allegedly did nothing meaningful to address it and instead forced a choice between church and a paycheck. That is what gives the case its punch. The problem is not simply that the employer changed a schedule. The problem, at least as the EEOC tells it, is that the company responded to a religious objection with a shrug and a directive. Where employers get burned Religious accommodation requests do not have to sound formal to count. If an employee says Sunday work conflicts with church obligations, that should trigger a real process, not a handoff back to the same supervisor who made the change in the first place. This is also a reminder that HR has to own these issues once they surface. A manager should not be freelancing accommodation decisions, and HR should not be acting like a switchboard operator. Someone has to ask questions, consider options, and document the analysis. Finally, sudden schedule changes deserve more care when they collide with long-standing religious practices. If the company truly cannot accommodate the conflict, it needs a reasoned explanation. “Take it or leave it” is not that explanation. What employers should do now Train managers to recognize accommodation requests when they hear them. An employee does not need to say “religious accommodation” to trigger a response. A plain statement about a church conflict is enough. Make HR responsible for the process. Once HR knows about a religious conflict, HR should drive the analysis, explore options, and document what happened. Sending the employee back into the field is how these cases get worse. Pause before forcing a schedule change through. If an employee has worked a stable schedule for years and raises a religious conflict, stop and evaluate alternatives before treating the issue as a done deal. Most religious accommodation cases are not lost on some exotic legal theory. They are lost because nobody at the company took the problem seriously enough to try to solve it.

Acumen has invested in Pullus Africa Solutions Limited, a Nigerian agribusiness working to create fairer and more reliable markets for smallholder poultry farmers. The investment will support Pullus in expanding its aggregation and cold-chain infrastructure, enabling farmers to sell chickens year-round at stable prices. Across Nigeria, many smallholder farmers depend on informal middlemen who offer extremely low prices for chickens and frequently delay payments. Without reliable buyers, farmers often restrict production to festive seasons such as Ramadan and Christmas to avoid selling under pressure. The result is unstable incomes for farmers and periodic shortages in poultry supply. Pullus is building a different model. The company aggregates chickens from smallholder farmers and supplies retailers, restaurants, hotels, and food chain stores across Nigeria. By purchasing birds directly and negotiating fair prices with buyers, Pullus helps farmers access dependable markets while reducing their reliance on exploitative intermediaries. The company also provides training, extension services, and input financing to improve poultry management and flock health. Through these services, farmers gain access to practical knowledge and resources that help increase productivity and reduce losses. Among farmers receiving extension support, more than nine in ten report lower flock mortality rates. “Acumen’s investment accelerates our mission to make poultry farming more profitable and resilient for smallholder farmers. Together, we are building a scalable, market-driven solution that strengthens food security and livelihoods across Nigeria and Africa.” Opeoluwa Fayomi, CEO and Co-Founder of Pullus Building a stronger poultry value chain Opeoluwa and her co-founder bring more than a decade of experience in the poultry sector. Opeoluwa began by building a poultry farm, growing it from a small operation of 500 birds into an agribusiness producing tens of thousands annually. Together, these co-founders have witnessed how limited market access, weak distribution networks, and lack of technical support held many smallholder farmers back. Pullus was founded to address these challenges across the poultry value chain. Today, the company connects farmers to reliable buyers while providing the services needed to improve productivity and incomes. Pullus has registered more than 6,000 smallholder farmers on its platform and trained over 28,000 farmers in poultry management and business practices. The company sold approximately 246,000 birds in 2025 and aims to sell more than 2 million birds by 2029. Pullus is also notable for its leadership. Opeoluwa is a female founder with deep sector expertise, and women make up half of the company’s senior management team, reflecting a commitment to building inclusive leadership within Nigeria’s growing agricultural sector. Why we invested At Acumen, we believe strengthening agricultural value chains is essential for improving farmer livelihoods and building resilient food systems. Pullus addresses a critical gap for smallholder poultry farmers: access to fair and reliable markets. Acumen’s investment will help Pullus acquire solar-powered cold rooms and refrigerated trucks, allowing the company to store poultry across seasons and expand distribution across states. This infrastructure will reduce losses, stabilize supply, and allow Pullus to reach more farmers and buyers. The investment will also provide working capital to purchase chickens from farmers and support the expansion of the company’s farmer financing and extension programs. “Acumen’s investment is a catalytic step in advancing Pullus’ mission to make poultry farming more profitable and resilient for smallholder farmers in Nigeria. When we first met Opeoluwa, Pullus was still pre-revenue, but her clarity of vision and conviction stood out. The speed and discipline with which the company has scaled reinforces our belief that this is a durable, market-driven platform with the potential to strengthen food security while improving farmer livelihoods.” Feyisola Adekogbe, Investment Manager at Acumen West Africa With Acumen’s support, the company will deploy new cold-chain hubs in Nasarawa, enabling Pullus to better service Abuja and other surrounding states, while contributing to a more equitable poultry market for Nigeria’s smallholder farmers. This work is supported by the CFYE (Challenge Fund for Youth Employment). Share Share on Facebook Share on X/Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Pintrest Share via Email More from our Knowledge Hub Investment Announcements India Acumen invests in ScrapUncle to bring transparency and dignity to India’s recycling economy ScrapUncle’s tech-enabled platform connects households, workers, and recyclers to formalize one of India’s most fragmented supply chains. Read more Investment Announcements Acumen invests in Instollar to power solar jobs and energy access in Nigeria Read more Investment Announcements Acumen invests in Mountain Harvest to support specialty coffee and farmer incomes in Uganda Read more Investment Announcements Acumen invests in Omia to unlock agricultural markets for displaced farmers in Northern Uganda Read more Read more The post Acumen invests in Pullus to expand fair poultry markets for smallholder farmers in Nigeria appeared first on Acumen.

by MalavitaFoxОн вспомнил его первым. Школа, война, бар – везде был Стив. Стив рисовал портреты Баки, а не Зимнего Солдата, Стив рисковал своей жизнью, Стив отшивал девушек, Стив пошел против всего мира. Ради Баки, а не Солдата.Words: 918, Chapters: 1/1, Language: РусскийFandoms: The Avengers (Marvel Movies), Captain America (Chris Evans Movies)Rating: Not RatedWarnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive WarningsCategories: M/MCharacters: James "Bucky" Barnes, Steve RogersRelationships: James "Bucky" Barnes/Steve Rogers

Getting everyone fed takes monumental effort every morning. Adding physical appointments to an overflowing calendar feels impossible. When do parents actually sit down and talk about health? Make it easier to get help. Virtual appointments strip away the barriers preventing families from prioritizing their diet. Removing the commute changes everything. Taking the friction out of the process allows people to finally focus on what matters most. Log into Appointments from the Car Line School pickup involves sitting in your vehicle waiting for the bell to ring. Instead of scrolling social media, open a video link on your phone. Connect directly with an expert while waiting. Swap the clinic waiting room for the comfort of your own driver seat. Parents spend hours every week shuttling children from swimming lessons to soccer practice. These idle pockets of time are perfect for a quick health check in. Just open your device and talk. Getting expert advice should not require a dedicated afternoon off. No Travel Time Means Sessions Fit Into Lunch Breaks Driving across town for a physical appointment eats up your afternoon. Remote consultations eliminate the commute completely. A standard thirty minute session actually takes exactly thirty minutes of your day. Working parents can easily step away from their desk and speak to an online dietitian in Australia without disrupting their entire workday. Eat your sandwich while discussing your nutritional goals. Find a quiet conference room and map out the week ahead. Eliminate the stress of finding a parking spot and rushing back to the office. Review Grocery Delivery Orders before Checking Out Buying food online often results in expensive impulse purchases. Virtual meetings allow professionals to look at your digital shopping cart in real time. Share your screen during a session to show exactly what you intend to buy. Swap sugary snacks for better alternatives before confirming the payment. Practical adjustments happen instantly. Shop smarter and build healthier pantries with expert oversight. Doing this together means you bring the right ingredients into the house. Kids Join from Tablets for Family Meal Planning Children are notoriously picky eaters. Getting them involved in the planning process increases the chances they will actually eat what is served. Hand them a tablet and let them participate in the conversation. They can talk to the expert directly from the playroom sofa. Making food choices together removes friction at the dinner table. Pick out recipes as a team. Everyone gets a voice in deciding what goes on the weekly menu. Reschedule Without Penalty When Sickness Strikes A sudden fever ruins the most meticulously planned schedule. Traditional clinics often charge cancellation fees for last minute changes. Virtual platforms offer flexibility when life throws an unexpected curveball. Send a quick message to adjust the meeting time when someone falls ill. Rest in bed with your sick child instead of stressing about missed health appointments. Flexibility is essential for families dealing with unpredictable germs. Health support must bend to fit reality. Access Coaches outside Metro Areas Where Specialists Are Scarce Regional towns often lack access to specialized health professionals. Rural residents face long drives just to seek basic advice. Going virtual removes geographical limitations entirely. Connect with top tier experts regardless of your postal code. Quality advice is available to everyone with a stable internet connection. Just log on and speak to the right person for your specific situation. Expand your options and find the perfect match for your household. The post 6 Reasons Remote Nutrition Coaching Works for Busy Aussie Families appeared first on Lovelolablog.

May arrives like a gentle breeze carrying the fragrance of blooming flowers, warmer sunlight, and the quiet reminder that life is always unfolding in beautiful ways. Nature is in full expression, and with it comes an invitation for us to open our hearts, soften our minds, and recognize the countless blessings already present in our lives. This month’s Reiki Calendar, “Blooming in Joy and Gratitude,” invites you to nurture the sacred seeds you have been planting within yourself. Just as flowers do not rush their blossoming, your spiritual journey unfolds in perfect timing. Through Reiki, mindful practices, and moments of heartfelt appreciation, May becomes a beautiful opportunity to expand into a deeper sense of inner abundance. Gratitude is more than simply acknowledging what is good in life. It is a powerful energetic practice that shifts our vibration, opens our hearts, and allows us to experience life with greater presence and trust. Joy naturally follows when we learn to honor both the simple and extraordinary moments that shape our journey. Throughout this month, you are invited to explore daily practices that awaken appreciation, deepen self-love, and help you recognize the gifts hidden in ordinary moments. From creating gratitude rituals and journaling your blessings to connecting with nature, honoring Mother Earth, setting powerful intentions, and infusing your Reiki practice with appreciation, each day offers a new opportunity to bloom from within. May your days be filled with blessings, your heart with appreciation, and your spirit with radiant light. A printable PDF version of the Blooming In Joy And Gratitude – Reiki Calendar May 2026 is available for FREE to all our subscribers. Subscribe below to download it. If you are already subscribed just insert your email address and we will send you the PDF. Insert your email address to Subscribe/Receive the free PDF version of this calendar! Email: I have read and agreed to the Privacy Policy For more inspiring insights on completing these daily tasks, you can check out the articles shared below: Day 1 – Be grateful for your blessed life this Full Moon Day 2 – Live in a state of love – exercise for self-empowerment Day 3 – Set aside 20′ to take a gratitude walk in nature Day 4 – While in Gassho, name the real miracles in your life Day 5 – Be grateful for YOU & all the good things in your life Day 6 – Just for today, find the gift in the present situation Day 7 – Spend time on an activity that brings you joy Day 8 – Expand your understanding of how gratitude works Day 9 – Infuse your body with gratitude & love – exercise Day 10 – What benefits has Reiki brought into your life? Day 11 – Live in the NOW & start your own gratitude journal Day 12 – Time to enjoy a Reiki-infused tea for relaxation Day 13 – Create gratitude routines that fit your lifestyle Day 14 – Be the pillar of Reiki: Self-Care to overflow Day 15 – Appreciate life with Gratitude Meditation Day 16 – Set your New Moon gratitude intentions Day 17 – 10 things you are grateful for about the Earth Day 18 – Spreading joy with Reiki gifts Day 19 – Create the gratitude jar and send it daily Reiki Day 20 – Explore your inner world through art journaling Day 21 – Count blessings: focus on what you have, not what you lack Day 22 – Cleanse and protect your energy field Day 23 – Write a letter of gratitude to Mother Earth Day 24 – Forgive and be grateful with Ho’oponopono Day 25 – Navigating challenges with Soul Eyes Day 26 – It’s time for healing gratitude affirmations! Day 27 – Always find joy in your work Day 28 – Before eating, express gratitude for the food Day 29 – What’s keeping you away from your true self? Day 30 – Use Anu, the Zibu symbol of gratitude Day 31 – Cleanse your subconscious this Full Moon License: You may use the document in a commercial setting, and you may distribute the document, as long as it remains intact and this license notice is included. You may not modify the document in any way. The post Blooming In Joy And Gratitude – Reiki Calendar May 2026 appeared first on Reiki Rays.

Put simply, a performance improvement plan is designed to improve performance, not expose employers to liability. Courts used to see it that way too. That changed when the Supreme Court redefined what counts as an adverse employment action — and suddenly PIPs were in play. TL;DR: An IT employee placed on a three-month performance improvement plan that she successfully completed did not suffer an adverse employment action under the ADEA. The First Circuit, applying the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, held that a PIP constitutes an adverse action only if it actually changes the terms or conditions of employment — and this one didn’t. The court also rejected the employee’s constructive discharge claim, finding that quitting ten months after finishing the PIP, with no one telling her to leave and no evidence of intolerable conditions, did not amount to a forced resignation. 📄 Read the First Circuit’s decision Continue reading

The rare turtle, found only along the Pearl River, could take decades to recover under a new federal plan aimed at restoring habitat and stabilizing its population. [...] Read More... from It could take decades to restore numbers of Pearl River map turtle The post It could take decades to restore numbers of Pearl River map turtle appeared first on The Lens.

An employee told Social Security it was “impossible” for him to work, then filed an ADA lawsuit claiming he could perform his job with accommodations. The court tossed it on summary judgment. TL;DR: A truck driver with Parkinson’s disease applied for total Social Security disability benefits, swearing under penalty of perjury it was “impossible” to work. He then sued his employer for ADA discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding the employee failed to explain the contradiction between his SSA representations and his claim that he was a qualified individual who could work with accommodations. 📄 Read the opinion From Informal Accommodations to a Formal Unraveling The employee drove trucks out of South Dakota from 2017 to 2021. Diagnosed with Parkinson’s in late 2018, the employer accommodated him informally for over two years: lighter loads, no ladder climbing, a five-day workweek ending by 1:00 p.m., and trailer washouts handled by a third party. A new terminal manager arrived in 2021 and formalized those accommodations. But friction followed. The employee was disciplined for running a stop sign and for a hauling infraction, the same one that earned a non-disabled coworker the same punishment. He reported “targeting and harassment.” HR investigated and found the concerns unsubstantiated. The manager told the employee he needed to do things “his way” or he’d get rid of him “one way or another.” In August, the employee cleared out his truck, told a coworker he “was done with this F’ing place,” and didn’t come back. The employer accepted his resignation. The employee says he was fired. The court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. “Impossible to Work” and “Qualified Individual” Don’t Fit in the Same Sentence Eleven days after walking off the job, the employee applied for total Social Security disability benefits. Under penalty of perjury, he stated it was “impossible” for him to work because he couldn’t “control [his] right hand, arm, right leg & foot” and reported “hallucinations & delusions” from his medication. The SSA approved his claim, finding him disabled as of August 7. Applying for Social Security disability doesn’t automatically kill an ADA suit. The Supreme Court said as much in Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp. But the employee here didn’t just claim a disability. He made specific factual representations that working was “impossible.” Under Cleveland, he needed to explain that contradiction. He never did. His hostile work environment claim failed too. A smirk, unwanted afterhours phone calls, and discipline for actual safety violations are, in the court’s words, “ordinary tribulations of the workplace.” Retaliation failed because the four-month gap between protected activity and termination wasn’t close enough on its own to establish causation. And South Dakota doesn’t recognize a public policy exception for disability-based wrongful termination, so that claim hit a dead end. This case gives employers a concrete tool. When an ADA plaintiff has also applied for Social Security disability, the specific language in that application, not just the fact of the filing, could be the most important evidence you have at summary judgment. The Employer’s ADA Defense Playbook After This Ruling SSA applications are discovery gold, but only when the language is specific The legal framework lets employees claim Social Security disability and sue under the ADA at the same time. But factual representations, like calling work “impossible,” are different from legal conclusions about disability status. Discovery should focus on what the employee actually wrote in the SSA application, not just whether one was filed. Parallel discipline neutralizes harassment claims faster than any brief The employee was disciplined for a hauling violation, but a non-disabled coworker got the same punishment for the same infraction. That consistency killed the hostile work environment argument. When the same rules apply to everyone and you can prove it, routine discipline is very hard to recast as disability harassment. Informal accommodations are a ticking clock The employer here moved from informal to formal accommodations when the new manager arrived. That generated documentation of exactly what was approved and what was denied. Without it, this case becomes a credibility fight about what the employee was entitled to. If your company is running informal accommodations right now, formalize them before a dispute forces the issue. The court didn’t break new ground here. It just reminded everyone that when you swear under penalty of perjury that you can’t work, a federal court is going to take you at your word.

An employee returned from his third round of FMLA leave and found a performance improvement plan waiting for him. That looks terrible. But a jury will never hear about it. TL;DR: A manufacturing engineer was placed on a PIP immediately after returning from his third FMLA leave and later terminated. He sued for race discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA retaliation. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer on all claims. Suspicious timing alone doesn’t establish pretext when the employer has legitimate, documented performance reasons, and the plaintiff couldn’t show the performance justification was false. 📄 Read the opinion Three FMLA Leaves, a PIP on Return, and a Termination. Then Litigation. The plaintiff, a Black man, began working for the employer at its aircraft assembly facility in Mobile, Alabama in 2019. After the employer learned he had an associate’s degree in applied sciences, it recruited him into a manufacturing engineer role. He took three rounds of FMLA leave. Immediately upon returning from the third, the employer placed him on a performance improvement plan. He was later terminated. The employer’s stated reason: poor performance tracked and documented across multiple trainers and scoring sessions going back months before the PIP was issued. The plaintiff sued for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981, and for FMLA retaliation. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer on all claims. Suspicious Timing Is Not Enough. You Need More. The timing of the PIP was the plaintiff’s strongest argument. The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged it: the court assumed he had established a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation precisely because the PIP came immediately upon his return from leave. But assumption of a prima facie case is not a win. It just shifts the burden. Once the employer put forward a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the PIP and termination (poor performance), the burden shifted to the plaintiff to show that reason was false or pretextual. He couldn’t. No comparator employees who performed similarly and weren’t disciplined. No evidence the performance documentation was fabricated or inconsistently applied. No “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence pointing to discrimination or retaliation. Proximity is relevant, the court held, but it has to be paired with something else: falsity of the stated reason, inconsistent treatment, or other evidence of discriminatory intent. Without it, summary judgment stands. Employers who document performance issues carefully and independently of protected activity are in a far stronger position when adverse action timing looks bad. The documentation is what converts a suspicious-looking PIP into a defensible one. What to Lock Down Before the PIP Conversation The date on the documentation is as important as what it says. Courts don’t just ask whether performance concerns existed. They ask when the employer first put them in writing. A performance record assembled after a termination decision, even if the underlying concerns were real, looks like justification-building rather than genuine management. The employer here survived because scoring sessions and trainer assessments went back months before the PIP. That chronology is what made the timing survivable. If your first written record of performance problems is dated the same week as the adverse action, you’ve handed the plaintiff a pretext argument. Comparator management is a litigation decision you make before anyone is fired. Plaintiffs defeat summary judgment most often not by proving discrimination directly, but by showing a similarly situated employee outside the protected class was treated differently. Employers rarely think about comparators until litigation starts. Before issuing a PIP or termination, HR should identify who else in similar roles has faced comparable performance issues and verify the response was consistent. If it wasn’t, document why. Unexplained inconsistency is pretext evidence regardless of how strong the underlying performance case is. A PIP that gets extended without clear criteria creates more risk than it resolves. This employer extended the PIP after the employee failed a final task assessment, which is defensible when extension criteria are objective and documented. The risk comes when extensions are open-ended or based on supervisor discretion without written benchmarks. Courts scrutinize those extensions as evidence the process was subjective or predetermined. If your PIP framework doesn’t specify in advance what triggers an extension versus a termination, you’re giving a plaintiff room to argue the outcome was decided before the process concluded. Timing will always look bad when an employee is disciplined or terminated in close proximity to protected activity. That’s unavoidable. What’s avoidable is having nothing else in the record to explain it.

The recent re-issuance of Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) authorizations for a number of IQOS heated tobacco devices is yet another milestone in the international tobacco harm reduction dialogue by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA stated that Philip Morris International (PMI) can continue marketing IQOS, highlighting that switching completely from cigarettes […]

According to the EEOC, a $2 billion company said it couldn’t afford $1,700 hearing protection for an employee losing her hearing on the job. A federal lawsuit and a $100,000 settlement later, that calculus looks different. This week is EEOC Settlement Week on The Employer Handbook: one recent EEOC settlement per day, with practical takeaways for employers. Today: a $100,000 ADA settlement over a denied accommodation and the demotion that followed. TL;DR: A manufacturer of threat detection equipment allegedly demoted a top-performing employee after she requested custom hearing protection costing $1,700 to protect her residual hearing from noise in the facility where she worked. The EEOC sued under the ADA, and the parties settled for $100,000 through a consent decree that also requires training, policy updates, and two years of EEOC monitoring. 📄 Read the EEOC press release Promoted for Outstanding Performance, Then Demoted Over a $1,700 Accommodation Request According to the EEOC’s complaint, the employee was hired in January 2022 at a Maryland facility that manufactures threat detection equipment. After 18 months as an Assembler, the employer promoted her to Cell Leader, a quasi-management role overseeing two production areas, and gave her raises. In October 2023, the employer rated her performance Outstanding, the highest possible rating. The employee was born with complete hearing loss in her left ear. Her right ear provided enough functional hearing to communicate, but the production area she oversaw was the loudest room in the facility, and working there was allegedly costing her the hearing in her right ear as well. The EEOC further claimed that in November 2023, she requested custom hearing protection designed to protect her residual hearing while still allowing her to hear coworkers. Cost: $1,700. The employer’s annual revenue: more than $2 billion. The employer denied the request, citing cost. Days later, the employer demoted her from both Cell Leader positions, reduced her pay, and reassigned her to Assembler. The complaint also alleged that a similarly situated Cell Leader without hearing loss kept her position despite on-premises misconduct involving illegal substances. The EEOC filed suit in August 2024. The employer denied liability. The parties resolved the case through a consent decree entered April 14, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The $100,000 settlement includes back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages, and requires revised ADA policies, annual ADA training for managers and HR staff, and quarterly disability complaint reports to the EEOC for two years. Three Things Worth Internalizing Before Your Next Accommodation Request Lands The ADA’s undue hardship standard requires an actual analysis, not a gut check The ADA requires that the reasonableness of an accommodation be evaluated against the organization’s overall financial resources, not the face value of the request. Citing cost alone, without that analysis, gives the EEOC a ready-made argument, and a $1,700 request against $2 billion in annual revenue is not a close call. When an employer denies on cost grounds, it needs documentation showing it actually ran the numbers. Outstanding performance ratings right before a demotion create serious credibility problems An Outstanding rating in October followed by a demotion in December signals to a jury, and to the EEOC, that something other than performance drove the change. If the timing of an adverse action tracks closely with a disability-related event, the employer needs a well-documented, non-disability explanation. Without one, the proximity speaks for itself. Comparator evidence tends to outlast every other defense The allegation that a non-disabled Cell Leader kept her position despite on-premises drug use, while a Cell Leader with a disability was demoted after an accommodation request, is exactly the kind of disparity that follows a case all the way to trial. When managers are making individualized retention calls, HR needs to be in that conversation before the decision is made. The ADA’s reasonable accommodation framework is process-dependent by design. Employers who treat it as a formality tend to find out why at considerable expense.

Paraquat use is rising and so are concerns about its link to Parkinson’s disease. A look at one Mississippi county at the center of the issue. [...] Read More... from Paraquat and Parkinson’s: Inside the risks in Wayne County, Mississippi The post Paraquat and Parkinson’s: Inside the risks in Wayne County, Mississippi appeared first on The Lens.

The $11.5 million verdict against SHRM survived. Now the court’s explanation of why offers a sharper lesson than the verdict itself. TL;DR: A federal court denied SHRM’s post-trial motions seeking to overturn or reduce an $11.5 million jury verdict for race discrimination and retaliation under Section 1981. The court upheld both the compensatory and punitive damages awards, finding the evidence supported the verdict and explicitly noting that SHRM, as an organization that trains employers on discrimination law, had clear notice that its conduct could expose it to a large punitive award. 📄 Read the opinion The Verdict You Already Know About In December, a Colorado jury awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages to a former SHRM employee who claimed her supervisor micromanaged her relative to white colleagues, retaliated after she complained, and set her up to fail as a pretext for termination. I covered the verdict and its lessons here. SHRM moved post-trial to have the verdict thrown out or the damages reduced. The court denied everything. When “Equal Treatment” Looks Like Evidence of Guilt The plaintiff complained that the newly imposed project deadlines were retaliatory. That same day, SHRM began drafting her termination paperwork. Around the same time, the supervisor went to a white colleague who held essentially the same role and reported to the same supervisor. For the first time, the supervisor imposed a hard deadline on her too — urgent, inflexible, and out of character. The colleague described the supervisor as “red-faced, sweaty” and the conversation as unlike anything before: no flexibility, career repercussions threatened, a vague reference to “a larger context” the supervisor couldn’t share. The plaintiff met her deadline. The white colleague missed hers. The white colleague kept her job. The plaintiff was terminated. The court called the supervisor’s sudden pivot to the white colleague a “transparent post hoc attempt to concoct evidence of equal treatment.” More pointedly, the court wrote that “one could infer that management knew that they were in a pickle because [the plaintiff] had seen through their termination scheme and sought to concoct some evidence for SHRM’s benefit in a ham-fisted manner.” The Part That Should Get HR’s Attention The punitive damages analysis contains a finding that applies beyond this case. The court tied SHRM’s institutional expertise directly to the size of the award, writing that the “fundamental question is whether [SHRM] had reasonable notice that its conduct could result in such a large punitive award” — and concluded that “[i]f anyone knew the possibility of high potential punitive damages for employment discrimination and malicious retaliation, it was SHRM, which trains businesses on related issues including potential liability.” That reasoning has a broader application. Employers with formal HR infrastructure, internal training programs, legal compliance teams, or professional credentials in the employment space face a higher punitive damages baseline when things go really wrong. For employers with formal HR programs, that baseline is higher than they may realize. Three Things to Take From This Ruling The case is heading to appeal. Some or all of these three points may survive it. Termination timing that follows a complaint will define the case SHRM drafted termination paperwork the same day the plaintiff raised a retaliation complaint. No performance evidence, however legitimate, fully neutralizes that sequence. When adverse action is contemplated or initiated near a protected complaint, document the decision-making process in real time — who decided, when, and on what basis — before the timing becomes the story. Courts measure equal treatment by what happened before the complaint, not after Equal treatment has to be the practice, not the response to getting caught. Courts and juries look at what was standard practice before the complaint was filed. If the baseline wasn’t even, the fix won’t hold. HR expertise raises the floor on punitive exposure, not just the ceiling on competence Formal training programs, HR certifications, and compliance infrastructure are assets in day-to-day operations — and may also be aggravating factors in litigation when conduct goes sideways. When the conduct is as egregious as it was here, an organization’s sophistication in employment law can dramatically increase the damages exposure. The court made that connection explicit. SHRM is appealing. Stay tuned.

I am an employment lawyer. I have spent over two decades helping employers avoid liability. Last week, I got a cease and desist letter. Against me. TL;DR: I received a cease and desist letter demanding that I immediately stop using the name “The Employer Handbook.” After careful legal review, I am complying. The blog needs a new name, and I need your help picking one. 📄 Visit The Employer Handbook while the name still applies Here’s What Happened Last week, I received a cease and desist letter from the operator of a competing blog — I’m not at liberty to name it — asserting prior rights to the name “The Employer Handbook.” The letter was aggressive, detailed, and included several citations I had to look up. I was impressed, frankly. I reviewed the demand carefully. Then I consulted with counsel. Counsel, in this case, being me. After weighing the applicable law, the strength of the opposing arguments, and my current appetite for litigation, I’ve concluded that the prudent course is to comply. The name goes. I just need a new one. Names I Have Already Ruled Out The Handbook Formerly Known as The Employer Handbook. Legally safe. Typographically impractical. Eric Meyer’s Blog About Work Stuff. Accurate. Not inspiring. Not That Other Employer Handbook. My personal favorite. Counsel has concerns. Counsel is me, and I overruled myself. The FMLA Corner. Too narrow. Also, I’d have to write about the FMLA every single day and I’m not sure I have it in me. Hostile Work Environment. Taken. Also possibly a liability. The HR Compliance Corner. Almost certainly already taken. I didn’t check. I keep coming back to one option: The Employee Handbook. I’ve been representing employers for over two decades. I have built a career on helping companies avoid liability, document performance issues, and terminate employees correctly. But if the cease and desist has forced my hand and the name is available — maybe this is the pivot. New name. New clients. I’ve heard employees have feelings too. I’m open to learning more. What I Need From You Unless you have a better idea. Send your suggestions to Eric.Meyer@pierferd.com. I’ll announce the winning name tomorrow. I’ll announce the winning name tomorrow. April Fools. The blog is keeping its name, I am keeping my clients, and The Employee Handbook is not happening. See you tomorrow.

Argentina had been enforcing a ban on the sale and import of vaping products for over 10 years. Now that the ban has been lifted. It also introduced restrictions for vapes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, providing a legal avenue for adults to access alternatives to combustible tobacco. The long-awaited acknowledgment of the limits […]

Over a year after it was finally revealed, the upcoming strategy game Star Wars Zero Company has been rated in Korea, suggesting an imminent release date announcement.Despite only being officially unveiled around a week before Star Wars Celebration just over a year ago, Star Wars Zero Company has been a long time coming. Reports of Bit Reactor – a new studio at the time, formed by former Firaxis devs – working on a Star Wars game emerged in 2022, with more details coming out a few years later that shed light on what type of strategy game it would be. Safe to say, people have been waiting a while for it, and thankfully, it seems like that wait won't be too much longer. As spotted by a user on ResetEra, Korea's Game Rating and Administration Committee (GRAC) published its age rating for Star Wars Zero Company. The rating given to the game says it's appropriate for ages 15 and up, citing realistic depictions of violence and vulgar language being used within gameplay. Interestingly, the GRAC rating also cites the game's ESRB rating as T, suggesting the ESRB has rated it despite the rating not being publicly available yet. As someone who saw Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker and thought it was so obnoxiously terrible that it single-handedly put me off of caring about anything Star Wars since (I know Andor seems fantastic, maybe one day), I'm counting on Zero Company to be the thing that gets me back into the franchise, cause Star Wars XCOM seems like an easy slam dunk – especially one set in the Clone Wars era. I just hope it doesn't suffer the fate of Marvel's Midnight Suns, where everyone loves it, but "everyone" is the 10 people who actually bought it. Star Wars Zero Company will kill story characters, Fire Emblem-style: Narrative lead says "I lost an argument about permadeath, and it was good that I did."

In the recently published op-ed “We should all stop going to the gym,” Arvind Chettiar argues that gym culture reflects a commodified, isolating version of wellness — one that prioritizes individual optimization over genuine community, and ultimately fails to address the broader loneliness epidemic. The framing overlooks what Sophia Sachs outlined just days earlier. She detailed what resistance training actually looks like: improving cancer survivability, preventing diabetes, strengthening cardiovascular health and extending lifespan. The science is solid; read it. To be fair, some of his critique lands. As the author points out, the loneliness epidemic is real, building community matters and the wellness industry does commodify self-care in ways worth critiquing. Those points are valid. But the piece makes sweeping, inflammatory claims about gyms and the people who use them that don’t hold up. I work out regularly — or try to. Most people who work out aren’t the hyper-disciplined, obsessive caricature that the op-ed is predicated on. Spend a few days at Marino Recreation Center, and you’ll see a much broader range of people: beginners figuring things out, athletes cross-training and students decompressing after long days. People go to manage anxiety and depression, recover from injuries, stay mobile as they age or feel capable in their bodies. Not everyone lifts — some run, do yoga or bike. It looks different for everyone, and genuine friendships may very well be formed there. That “gym bro” character is a straw man, and it’s doing the heavy lifting the argument can’t do on its own. If one’s only experience of the gym is through a fitness influencer’s feed, you haven’t truly seen the gym. The op-ed frames working out alone in a gym as complicity in capitalism, arguing that improving yourself is “unpaid maintenance on a body that someone else profits from.” But while the fitness industry is commercialized, the benefits of exercising manifest as strength, health and resilience. Pushing through a tough set or a long run is empowerment, not exploitation. Inequities in healthcare and fitness access are real, but they don’t negate self-improvement. These are not mutually exclusive. Let’s be clear: most gym-goers don’t see the gym as the only valid form of exercise, or as something opposed to community. Many of us hike, bike and run outside, too. We’re not dismissing other types of movement or social connection — we’re just choosing one tool that works for us while also participating in others. And gym alternatives aren’t as ideal as the article suggests. It says community sports are “better than the gym,” but better for whom? A pickup basketball game is great until someone lacks a group to play with. A hike requires transportation and decent weather. Dance and martial arts classes cost money, often more than a gym membership. Everything has tradeoffs, and people choose what fits their lives, schedules and bodies for good reasons. The op-ed highlights the loneliness epidemic — comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day — and lays it at the gym’s feet. But that crisis was largely driven by social media fragmentation, remote work and the decline of third places. The gym didn’t replace those. For many, it’s one of the few places left where they see familiar faces week after week. The truth is, most people work out for themselves in ways that fit their lives, often alongside other forms of exercise and community. Dismissing gyms as inherently harmful ignores the real choices people make to get stronger, healthier and more capable. Sean Finch is a third-year computer science major. He can be reached at finch.s@northeastern.edu. If you would like to submit a letter to the editor in response to this piece, email comments@huntnewsnu.com with your idea. The post Letter to the Editor: No, the gym isn’t your enemy appeared first on The Huntington News.