The Plaintiff rapped. Will her case get zapped?

Here's what's been going on this week.

"The Justice in the bow tie."

Yesterday, I posted about a disability discrimination case that the employer did not really screw up. Even so, a few less-than-optimal moves resulted in an adverse jury verdict that was upheld on appeal.

In Chapter 2 of our series on "employers who didn't really screw up but still lost" is a sexual harassment case that bothers me, involving the Idaho Department of Corrections ...

Dear Readers: Not that anything in this blog constitutes legal advice anyway, but before you accuse me of legal malpractice based on the following post, please notice today's date. Happy April Fool's Day! Robin

Many employers ask me: "Robin, what are your 'best practices' for workplace sexual harassment?" I'm glad you asked!

No. 1: Be sure that your policy on sexual harassment is ...

What could WDBJ7-TV have done to prevent Wednesday morning's tragic on-air murders? Unfortunately, probably not a thing.

I'm a second-guesser, and I have spent much of the last 48 hours racking my brain about what the CBS affiliate in Roanoke, Virginia, could have done differently. Based on what I've been able to discern, the station did everything right.

(I see that Eric Meyer of The ...

If you try to prevent or end workplace discrimination as part of your job, is it legal for your employer retaliate against you?

Inquiring HR professionals, in-house lawyers, and counselors want to know!

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Fourth Circuit says no - Title VII's anti-retaliation protections apply to you, too.

In a very significant decision that all employers should ...

Some employers really, really hate to fire employees. That doesn't mean they won't do it - but they'll do just about anything to avoid calling it what it is.

A few months ago, I wrote about "bogus RIFs" - when an employer tries to avoid "firing" an employee by claiming it's really a "reduction in force."

There's another kind of "alternative" separation called a constructive discharge.

As you may have seen, the jury in Marchuk v. Faruqi came back yesterday with a verdict for plaintiff Alexandra Marchuk, but it will not allow her to retire, nor will it even pay off her law school student loans.

Ms. Marchuk got a total of $140,000:

$70,000 in back pay

$20,000 in front pay

$5,000 in punitive damages against the law firm

and $45,000 in punitive damages against partner Juan ...

Law360 reports this afternoon that the jury returned a verdict for Alexandra Marchuk and against defendants Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and partner Juan Monteverde. The jury awarded her $90,000 in actual damages, and punitive damages will be determined later. She had asked for $2 million.

Ms. Marchuk won on her hostile work environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. However ...