Are Human Resources representatives advocates for employees, or shills for the corporate bigwigs?

I suppose you've been following the story about how Amazon (1) is the worst place in the world to work, (2) no it isn't, (3) anyway, the New York Times didn't do good research and based its story on too many anecdotes, and (4) yes, it did do good research, and anyway how are you supposed to do a ...

The Marchuk v. Faruqi law firm sexual harassment case has been "amicably resolved." Now, what will we gossip about?

(To see why I'm disappointed, go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Apparently, I wasn't just "following" this case - I was stalking it.)

After the verdict that pleased no one, both sides had appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second ...

Riddle me this:

Employee sues her boss for sexual harassment. Case settles for $127,500, and she has to agree to confidentiality and non-disparagement.

About nine years later, boss becomes an internet pariah for allegedly poaching a beautiful and beloved lion in Zimbabwe. Somebody in the media finds out about the sexual harassment settlement (how'd they do that, if it was ...

Maybe it's just me, but workplace harassment issues seem to come in waves -- I'll go months, or even a year, without an issue, and then WHAM! everybody has a "situation," or at least they need to get their preventive training done.

Right now, we're in a bit of a "flash flood," so I thought it might be a good time to review the basics, with some updates.

WHAT ARE THE FIVE HARASSMENT ...

Are harassment and retaliation lawsuits all going to the jury now? Are employers doomed? Are the plaintiffs' lawyers popping the champagne corks? Is the EEOC dancing for joy?

The employment law world is abuzz about last week's racial harassment/retaliation decision from my own U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (Many thanks to an attorney friend who emailed a ...

"Too long, loved the judge, didn't believe either one of them but still think she may have been hurt, liked the firm but thought they should have done more."

A little Faruqi fix for those of you don't know what to do with yourselves now that the trial is over -- David Lat of Above the Law interviewed one of the jurors, who offered some excellent insights into why they did what they did. Definitely ...

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 ...

The sexual harassment case of Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi went to the jury late yesterday afternoon. For previous coverage of the trial, go here, here, here, here, here, and here.

In closing arguments, the attorney for the defendants called Ms. Marchuk a "wolf" and said she had made up her allegations to get money. Among other things, he noted that her gynecologist, who she saw ...

As expected, Law360 reports this morning that Plaintiff Alexandra Marchuk has asked Judge Alvin Hellerstein to reconsider his ruling that Nadeem Faruqi and Lubna Faruqi, co-founders of the New York law firm Faruqi & Faruqi, be dismissed from her lawsuit as individual defendants. She also requested reconsideration of the court's decision granting judgment to the defendants on her ...