Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: there is continued instability and fluctuation with the (attempted) changes in federal labor and employment law resulting from executive orders (EOs) and court decisions, so check with us or another employment lawyer before taking any action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 5/18/2025 told us Google pays $50M to settle racial discrimination lawsuit in US. The suit accused the tech giant of systemic racial discrimination against its Black employees. The preliminary settlement covers over 4,000 employees based in California and New York, but is still pending approval from a judge. Let’s take a deeper dive.
The suit, filed in March 2022, accused Google of cultivating a “racially biased corporate culture.” What that meant relative to Black employees is in the post. In 2021, merely 4.4% of Google’s workforce were Black employees and only 3% were in leadership roles.
April Curley, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and a former Google employee, was hired to improve outreach to historically Black colleges. She alleged that Google denied her promotions, labeled her as an “angry” Black woman, and terminated her employment after six years when she was preparing a report on the company’s purported racial bias.
Along with the allegations of systemic bias, the lawsuit also referenced cases where managers reportedly made derogatory comments about Black employees. What they allegedly said, and how plaintiffs characterized it, is in the post.
Google, an Alphabet subsidiary based in Mountain View, California, has denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the lawsuit. It says that it has fully complied with all relevant laws and had no immediate further comment on the matter.
As is usual, the settlement does not imply an admission of guilt or liability by Google.
TAKEAWAY: The best settlement is where both parties are unhappy: one side receiving less than that to which it believes it is entitled, and the other paying more than it believes it has to. Settlements also factor in the cost of defense, even if the defendant has solid proof.
The post on Monday 5/19/2025 noted Judge temporarily blocks Trump administration from federal employee layoff. That happened on 5/9/2025 relative to the executive order that enabled the administration to fire tens of thousands of federal workers and to eliminate certain agencies entirely. The ruling puts on hold the White House’s plans to implement government-wide layoffs, including expected staff cuts at the departments listed in the post.
The Judge said in her order that federal laws give the president broad power to reorganize the government, including to order mass layoffs. But she added the White House must also follow a set of rigorous legal and procedural requirements. A portion of the order is quoted in the post. The judge also harkened back a few years to when Trump had attempted some broad-scale government reorganization efforts in 2017, du-24, 2025,ring his first presidency — but she noted that he had also urged Congress to pass accompanying legislation.
What exactly the order does, and the time frame, is in the post. The 19 departments/agencies covered are also listed in the post. The Judge suggested during the hearing that the White House’s moves were an attempt to circumvent the rigorous legal procedures required in mass government layoffs. Her statement on this is also quoted in the post.
Justice Department lawyers quickly appealed the judge’s ruling. A DOJ statement is also in the post. And who are the plaintiffs (representatives) in the suit? They include the largest federal workers’ unions in the country and several nonprofits.
It is undisputed that federal laws allow the White House to lay off government workers because of organizational decisions, rather than performance issues. Those reductions-in-force (RIF) generally require the government to provide employees with at least 60 days advance notice and to consider the things listed in the post. The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s executive orders for office closures, voluntary retirements, reductions-in-force and other means unlawfully circumvents those procedures and violates the Constitution.
Ironically, the DOJ lawyers argued that the unions’ request for a temporary injunction came too late and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because federal workers can appeal job actions to administrative bodies such as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). But the judge found that argument doomed by their own client’s actions (see the post) Congress or the plaintiffs.
TAKEAWAY: More of the seesaw on government employment and the constitutionality of the various executive orders. Stay tuned …
The post on Tuesday 5/20/2025 told us former “Top Producer” sues ABC6 and parent company for age discrimination. Look at the alleged facts …
Longtime television sales executive David Jones has filed a federal lawsuit against ABC6 and its parent company, Standard Media Group, LLC. Jones is well-known in the market for his long tenure at WJAR. According to the lawsuit, on or about June 27, 2022, Jones was hired by ABC6 to work as a Senior Account Executive and was assigned to the Providence office. He alleges that he was offered an annual salary of $42,000 plus commissions on all new TV and Digital Business in addition to getting a transactional list of existing customers, at the manager’s discretion. Jones says that throughout his employment, he performed above and beyond the call of duty. More details on that, and his disciplinary history, are in the post.
But he alleges that in January 2023, his base salary was arbitrarily reduced to $35,000 annually by Stan Knott, COO of Defendant Standard Media, over the objection of Jones’ manager, [Chip] Black. When Jones went to Nashville to speak with Knott about the pay cut, Knott refused to talk to him. More information on Knott’s role is in the post.
The suit also alleges that in April 2023, during a different visit to the Providence newsroom, Knott called an ‘all hands’ meeting ostensibly as a ‘pep-talk’ and to introduce a new viewer product. During his presentation, Knott asked a question (which is in the post) that got an audible gasp from those in attendance. After an uncomfortable delay, the majority of the people in the room raised their hands in response to the question. Jones was one of the few who did not raise their hands. Knott said that those who did not raise their hands would be “the drivers of our new success.’ Even after Knott’s remarks, Jones continued to try to talk to Knott about the pay cut. And what did Jones do about work? See the post. The suit then alleges that on August 15, 2023, when Jones reported to work at 7:45 a.m., he was called in to a conference room and abruptly terminated without explanation, warning, progressive discipline, or opportunity to correct any purported work deficiency.
The relief sought in the suit is listed in detail in the post. Standard Media’s response to a request for comment is also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t take adverse action against anyone based on a protected characteristic. And be careful about taking adverse action against someone because you even think they are in a protected group.
The post on Wednesday 5/21/2025 was about HOA Q&A: Are the ledgers of an association subject to privacy concerns?
The question was by someone who lives in a condominium association. They said that an owner has requested to see the ledgers for two homes that are believed to be delinquent in the payment of assessments. The Board cited privacy concerns and refused to provide access to the ledgers. The person wanted to know if the Board response was correct.
Based on a Florida statute, the response would be no, the Board was not correct. That law provides that the ledgers are official records of the association; it also lists official records that are confidential and not subject to unit owner inspection. Owners’ ledgers are not on the list of confidential official records. What remedies does the owner requesting access have if the Board continues to refuse? See the post.
So what if this were a question under PA law? Would the answer be the same. Maybe. It depends on what the association’s governing documents say about the accessibility of documents. It also depends on whether the Board (or a court if it comes to that) would grant access even if personal information (owner SSN, phone, any bank account information, and the like) is redacted before the ledgers are provided.
TAKEAWAY: Records inspection is a big issue in PA. The governing documents often contain a relevant provision, and then one must look at the applicable state statutes (Uniform Condominium Act, Real Estate Cooperative Act, or Planned Community Act, as well as the (non-profit) Corporation Law). Get a community association lawyer involved if this is an issue.
In the post on Thursday 5/22/2025, we learned condo residents allowed “limited, one-time access” to units as repairs continue. Ensure the proper repair and replacement of the Common Elements in your association so this won’t be you. Let’s see what happened here.
Dozens of residents have been unable to return to their homes after being evacuated from a Clearwater condo due to structural concerns. But recently the association sent out a notice to residents that they would be allowed a “very limited, one-time access” to their units, that engineers had provided written authorization to allow “safe emergency access” to the 12-story building. The procedure to be strictly followed was in the notice and is described in the post.
Why were residents ordered to evacuate in the first place? See the post. But repairs are on schedule.
Some of those evacuated said they had left with nothing but the clothes on their backs. One resident was still wearing the same clothes he had on when he left as he spoke to reporters days later. The guidelines provided by the association, listed in the post, include that residents must designate no more than two people to enter their unit for their time slot, residents and/or their designated representative(s) will be escorted into the building, but the escort is not permitted to assist with packing or carrying contents out of unit.
An outside structural engineer was hired to conduct a peer review as an added safety measure. And what does the board plan to do? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: Let us repeat: it is imperative that your association properly maintains the Common Elements, especially if they impact on your unit (your living space). Talk to a community association lawyer if you have any questions.
The post on Friday 5/23/2025 noted construction supply company to pay $150K in EEOC disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit settlement. Black Diamond Blade Company, doing business as Cutting Edge Supply, a California-based construction supply company operating in Arizona, has agreed to pay $150,000 to a former welder and furnish other relief to settle a suit brought by the EEOC. What happened?
Allegedly Cutting Edge failed to accommodate a welder with diabetes who requested an accommodation to take snack breaks periodically throughout the workday to regulate his blood sugar. But then there was more – see the post. And eventually, the employee was fired. The EEOC alleged that such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), so it filed suit in federal court in Arizona after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
The monetary payment is not all that Cutting Edge agreed to. It will provide non-monetary relief too – see the post as to what it must do and for how long. Statements from the EEOC are also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must know their accommodation under the ADA – and remember that there are no magic words that an employee must use.
Finally, in the post yesterday 5/24/2025, we read that Walmart to pay $415K in EEOC sexual harassment and retaliation suit settlement. Another suit against Walmart, another settlement.
Here the EEOC alleged that the former manager of a Walmart Supercenter in West Virginia subjected female employees to egregious sexual harassment, including unwelcome and offensive sexual touching; requests for sexual acts in exchange for money or favorable treatment at work; and more (yes, unfortunately there was more) as detailed in the post. Walmart received multiple complaints about the store manager’s conduct and failed to take appropriate action to stop the harassment. After the store manager subjected a female employee to particularly egregious harassment, she reported the harassment to Walmart. And then … see the post.
The EEOC alleged violation of Title VII (the operative sections of which are noted in the post, and one of which might not be top of mind for you). The EEOC filed suit in federal court after conciliation failed. After that the parties reached a voluntary agreement to settle the case by entry of a consent decree (which has now been approved by a judge). Walmart has agreed to pay $415,112 to two aggrieved female workers and, as is common, must also provide substantial non-monetary relief as detailed in the post. A statement from the EEOC, including some of the salient facts that caused it to file suit, is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must train their managers on what they can and cannot do – and then take action if managers run afoul of that training.