Employment law is constantly evolving, and 2024 has already brought significant rulings that HR professionals need to understand.

These cases aren't just headlines — they have real implications for how organizations navigate their responsibilities toward employees. Whether you're updating policies, preparing for compliance changes, or managing workplace risks, staying informed is crucial. Below, we’ll explore some of the year’s largest employment law cases and what they mean for HR teams striving to build compliant and proactive workplaces.

Title VII Claims No Longer Require 'Proof of Significant Harm'

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a female police officer was transferred from a prestigious position to a less favorable role within the department, maintaining the same pay but with different duties and hours. She sued for sex discrimination under Title VII, but a lower court dismissed the case, stating she hadn’t provided "proof of significant harm."

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this, ruling that employees no longer need to demonstrate significant harm—  like a pay cut or demotion — to pursue a discrimination claim. Instead, showing any harm to the terms or conditions of employment is sufficient.

Why This Matters for HR:

This ruling lowers the threshold for discrimination claims, making it easier for employees to challenge even minor changes to their roles or working conditions.

HR teams must now be more cautious with reassignments, ensuring decisions are fair, transparent, and backed by non-discriminatory reasons. Here’s how HR can stay ahead:

• Reassess Policies: Ensure that transfers, promotions, and role changes are based on objective, documented criteria. Minor shifts in hours, responsibilities, or team assignments could now lead to legal challenges.
• Strengthen Communication: Clearly communicate the reasoning behind role changes to employees. Transparency helps prevent misunderstandings and allows employees to raise concerns early.
• Update Training: Equip managers with updated anti-discrimination training to reflect the expanded implications of Title VII. Emphasize the importance of fairness in all employment decisions.
• Document Everything: Thorough documentation is crucial. Keep records of performance reviews, reasons for role changes, and any related communication. These can serve as protection if a claim arises.

For more information about Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, you can find the case information here.

Vendor AI Bias: Who’s Liable When Algorithms Discriminate?

In Mobley v. Workday, Inc., a job applicant alleged that Workday’s AI-powered hiring algorithms discriminated against him and other applicants based on protected characteristics.

The lawsuit questions whether vendors like Workday, which provide AI-based hiring tools, can be held directly liable for discrimination, or if the responsibility falls solely on the employers using these tools.

This case is a pivotal moment in defining the legal responsibility in the rapidly evolving landscape of AI recruitment.

Why This Matters for HR and Employers:

This case highlights the critical need for employers to closely evaluate the AI tools they use in hiring. While outsourcing parts of the hiring process to vendors might seem like a way to streamline recruitment, companies may still face legal risks if those tools are found to be discriminatory. To minimize this risk, HR teams should take the following steps:

• Investigate Vendor Algorithms: Understand how the vendor’s AI algorithms are created and the data used for training. Ask specific questions about how they mitigate bias and ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
• Request Routine Audits: Ensure that vendors perform regular audits to check for discriminatory outcomes and have transparent processes for handling any issues that arise.
• Review Contracts for Liability: Examine your vendor agreements carefully. As AI-related lawsuits increase, companies may find that contracts are shifting liability clauses, making it essential to know who is responsible for biased outcomes.

The Mobley v. Workday case is a wake-up call for HR leaders to take a more proactive role in understanding and overseeing the AI tools they rely on in the hiring process. With vendors potentially sharing liability, employers need to be sure that all third-party tools comply with legal standards to avoid costly lawsuits.

Whistleblower Protections: What Employers Should Know

In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, Trevor Murray, a research strategist at UBS, was terminated after reporting unethical behavior by his supervisors. He filed a whistleblower claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which the Supreme Court upheld, stating that Murray did not need to prove retaliatory intent—only that his whistleblowing was a contributing factor in his termination. The burden then shifted to UBS to prove it would have terminated him regardless of his report, which they failed to do.

Why This Matters for Employers:

This case highlights the importance of handling whistleblower claims carefully and ensuring that employees who report misconduct are protected under Sarbanes-Oxley. Employers should document the reasons behind any adverse employment actions thoroughly to defend against such claims.

• Ensure Protection for Whistleblowers: It’s critical to have clear policies that protect employees from retaliation, as well as thorough documentation to justify personnel decisions.
• Review and Update Policies: Make sure your whistleblower protection policies comply with Sarbanes-Oxley and that managers are trained to handle reports appropriately.

The Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC case reinforces that whistleblowing protections are broad, and companies must be diligent in preventing retaliatory actions.

Have a Safe Whistleblower Channel with AllVoices

Ensuring that whistleblowers have a safe, anonymous channel to report concerns is crucial for protecting your organization.

‍

‍

AllVoices allows companies to address potential issues before they escalate, offering secure, anonymous reporting options and tools for case management. Explore how AllVoices can help you stay compliant and create a transparent workplace.

ADA Compliance and the Importance of Clear Documentation in Return-to-Work Policies

In Jones v. Georgia Ports Authority, a crane operator with PTSD alleged that his termination was discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After taking leave to manage his condition, Jones requested additional accommodations, including a transfer to a less stressful environment.

When he attempted to return to work, his employer cited deficiencies in his return-to-work letter—primarily, that it lacked a doctor’s signature and did not clearly state that he was ready to resume duties.

The court ruled in favor of the Georgia Ports Authority, emphasizing the importance of adhering to internal return-to-work policies, especially in cases involving medical accommodations.

Why This Matters for Employers:

This case highlights the balance employers must strike between supporting employees’ accommodation needs and enforcing clear return-to-work procedures. The Georgia Ports Authority successfully defended its actions by following its documented policies, which is a key takeaway for HR teams managing similar situations.

• Enforce Consistent Policies: Employers have the right to enforce return-to-work policies, but they must ensure these policies are applied consistently across all employees. In this case, the employer’s consistency in requiring a signed, completed return-to-work letter helped them avoid liability.
• Handle Medical Accommodations Responsibly: While it’s critical to support employees dealing with medical issues, employers can still require proper documentation before allowing a return to work. This case shows that adherence to documentation standards can be a strong defense when facing ADA-related claims.

By maintaining clear, well-communicated policies and ensuring consistency, employers can mitigate risks while remaining compliant with ADA obligations.

When Responding to Employee Claims, Silence is Golden

In Su v. Bevins & Son, Inc., the employer retaliated against an employee, Riley Bockus, after he won a back-pay settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Following the settlement, the company’s secretary posted on Facebook, identifying Bockus and encouraging others to research his criminal background.

Multiple people responded with comments, and the employer liked and endorsed those remarks. The court found this conduct to be retaliatory, ruling that free speech does not protect employers from consequences when they publicly disparage an employee exercising their legal rights.

Why This Matters for Employers:

This case emphasizes the importance of discretion when responding to employee legal victories. Employers can be held liable if their actions after a settlement discourage other employees from pursuing their rights. In this case, social media posts turned into grounds for retaliation claims.

• Caution in Public Responses: Social media responses, even indirect comments, can be seen as retaliatory. In this case, the public exposure of Bockus' personal history had a chilling effect and qualified as retaliation under the FLSA.
• Maintain Professionalism: It’s crucial to train leadership and management to avoid public retaliation. Any comments following an employee legal victory can be misinterpreted and lead to further legal issues, as seen here.

The Su v. Bevins & Son case highlights that even indirect actions, such as social media posts, can lead to serious legal consequences for employers.

FMLA Isn’t a Shield Against Termination

In Cerda v. Blue Cube Operations LLC, Elizabeth Cerda, a long-term employee, was fired for failing to accurately record her extended lunch breaks, which she claimed were necessary to care for her father during her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.

While Cerda had a brief conversation with her employer about the possibility of using FMLA for this care, she never followed through on the formal request, nor did she notify the employer about her prolonged breaks.

‍

‍

When her employer discovered she had been paid for time she didn’t work and later threatened to expose her coworkers to COVID-19, Cerda was terminated. The court ruled in favor of the employer, stating that while Cerda was entitled to FMLA protections, she failed to properly request leave or follow company policy, making the termination lawful.

Why This Matters for Employers:

This case underscores the importance of ensuring that employees comply with FMLA requirements and company policies when requesting leave. It also highlights that FMLA does not provide blanket immunity from termination, especially when there are legitimate policy violations.

• FMLA and Notice Requirements: Employees are required to give sufficient notice for FMLA leave, even if they don’t explicitly invoke FMLA. Employers are not responsible for assuming an employee’s need for leave without proper notice.
• Policy Compliance: In this case, Cerda was terminated for policy violations—falsifying work hours and making threats—not for requesting FMLA leave. Employers must document and clearly separate the reason for termination from any protected activity.

The Cerda v. Blue Cube Operations LLC case highlights the fine line between respecting FMLA rights and enforcing workplace policies.

Clarify How You’ll Use Biometric Data

In Deyerler v. HireVue, Inc., a group of Illinois residents filed a class-action lawsuit against HireVue, alleging that its use of AI-powered facial recognition software during virtual job interviews violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

HireVue’s technology collected biometric data from job applicants, including facial geometry, without providing proper disclosures or obtaining the required consent as mandated by BIPA.

The court ruled that some claims under BIPA would proceed, noting that HireVue did not have sufficient grounds to dismiss the allegations.

Why This Matters for Employers:

With the growing use of AI in hiring processes, this case highlights the need for employers to ensure that any use of biometric data complies with local laws like BIPA. Violating these laws can lead to lawsuits, even if the technology is provided by a third-party vendor.

• Biometric Privacy Compliance: Employers using technologies that collect biometric data—such as facial recognition or fingerprinting—must ensure that they obtain clear, informed consent from applicants before collecting such data. This includes explaining how the data will be used, stored, and destroyed.
• Vendor Agreements: Ensure that your vendor contracts explicitly address compliance with biometric privacy laws. If your vendor’s technology collects biometric data, you may still be held accountable if it fails to comply with state laws like BIPA.

The Deyerler v. HireVue, Inc. case serves as a reminder that employers should exercise caution when using AI tools, ensuring full transparency and compliance to avoid potential legal challenges.

Train Managers to Spot ‘Unspoken’ Accommodation Requests

In Yanick v. The Kroger Co., Mary Ellen Yanick, a bakery manager who returned to work after breast cancer treatment, struggled with her duties but did not explicitly request accommodations. Despite her doctor’s clearance to return to full duty, Yanick expressed difficulty in performing certain tasks, stating that she was “struggling” and needed time to “get back to normal.”

However, her manager did not interpret this as a request for accommodation. Yanick was demoted, leading her to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court ruled that her subtle comments about physical struggles should have been recognized as an accommodation request, even though she didn’t formally ask for one.

Why This Matters for Employers:

This case emphasizes the need for employers and managers to recognize when an employee may require accommodations, even if they don’t use specific legal terms. Employers are required to infer accommodation requests when the context makes an employee’s struggles evident.

• Recognizing Implicit Requests: Employees are not required to explicitly use the word "accommodation" or provide detailed explanations. In this case, the court ruled that Yanick’s remarks about her physical struggles should have triggered an accommodation process.
• Manager Training: Train managers to be aware of unspoken or indirect signs that an employee may need accommodations. Performance issues tied to health conditions or recent medical leave may require HR involvement, even if the employee doesn’t make a formal request.

The Yanick v. The Kroger Co. case underscores the importance of proactive management and recognizing when an employee may need help, even when they don't directly ask for it.

Staying Proactive in a Complex Legal Landscape

These cases highlight the need for careful policy enforcement and thorough investigations. With AllVoices, companies can upload and reference their policies during investigations, ensuring compliance and identifying issues before they escalate. AllVoices streamlines reporting, case management, and investigations, enabling HR teams to investigate thoroughly and minimize risks.

By leveraging these tools, your organization can stay compliant and maintain transparency. Learn more about AllVoices and how we can help your business today.