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: remember we now post every other day.
The posts on Sunday 11/30/2025, here and here, were about HOA (and condo) Q&A: Can the board automatically suspend a member’s right to use the pool? Do you know how this would play out in Pennsylvania? (NOTE: you do not need to pay to view)
The fact patter: the board of an HOA automatically suspended an owner’s right to use the pool because he had a party without getting approval from the manager and paying the refundable damage deposit, both of which are a violation of the rules. That person was already suspended from using the pool for not paying a bunch of fines he previously accumulated. The question was whether the automatic suspension was legal.
The analysis/answer: it depends. On applicable state law and the association’s governing documents. For example, the fining and suspension provisions for every HOA are outlined in Florida law and specifics may be expanded upon within the association’s governing documents.
Automatic suspension can only be done if the board follows the procedure required by the association’s governing documents and applicable state law. What happens if the association does not follow the required procedures? See the post.
Also check state law and the governing documents to see if there is a variation in procedure depending on what the violation is or what action is sought to be taken against the owner. For example, there might be a difference between suspending the owner’s use of an amenity and their right to vote. See the post for an example.
TAKEAWAY: Condo and HOA boards must know what they can or cannot (or must or must not) do relative to enforcement – working with a community association lawyer is a good idea.
The posts on Tuesday 12/2/2025, here and here, told us a federal Circuit Court OKs disabled driver’s firing for painting graffiti on customers’ goods. Once again, facts matter so let’s look at the ones here.
Welch, the plaintiff, injured his knee in an on-the-job fall. He submitted a workers’ compensation claim two years later after aggravating the injury, but the claim was denied. Welch injured his ankle sometime after that and filed a separate claim, which was granted. Due to his knee injury, however, Welch’s employer reassigned him from a driving role to a factory role that paid less. Graffiti began appearing on the company’s products shortly after the reassignment. Based on a supervisor’s account that Welch confessed to painting the graffiti, the employer claimed that Welch was responsible and fired him. Welch claimed the transfer and firing constituted disability discrimination and retaliation. After he filed suit, the federal trial court granted summary judgment to the employer. Welch then appealed.
Welch had alleged that his firing violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state civil rights laws as well as the state’s worker’s compensation laws. But on appeal the federal Circuit Court held that Welch did not meet his burden under McDonnell Douglas (linked in the post). The Court gave some examples. For one, Welch claimed that his identification as the graffiti artist was not based in fact and that he disagreed with the account given by a manager who reported his confession. The Court held that the employer had no reason to doubt the accuracy or objectivity of the manager’s account and it went further (as detailed in the post).
Welch’s also alleged that disability discrimination and retaliation were the “likelier actual motivation” rather than the graffiti; his argument why is summarized in the post. The Court found each of Welch’s arguments insufficient to meet his burden.
This was not the first time this Court issued a decision like this. In 2020 it held that an auto supplier did not discriminate against an administrative assistant with asthma when it refused to transfer her or rehire her after the supplier had been acquired by another firm. The basis of the Court’s decision in that case is in the post.
Similarly, in 2019 the Ninth Circuit held that a worker who claimed he was fired because of his disability also failed to meet his burden. A short description of that case is also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Not every adverse action taken by an employer is illegal – there is a procedure for evaluating or weighing claims of discrimination that must be followed. Get an employment lawyer involved.
The posts on Thursday 12/4/2025, here and here, noted that condo manager appears in court for $140K “ghost employee” scheme. Is there a question in your mind? Read on …
The woman accused of stealing more than $140K from an HOA recently made her first appearance in front of a judge. Yissely Herrouet, 37, faces multiple charges including organized scheme to defraud and grand theft. Herrouet didn’t get the chance to defend or explain her actions in bond court. Rather, she is out on a $45,000 bond but there are some conditions to her release. Let’s look at the backstory first.
Herrouet was a manager at the Clubs at Brickell Bay Condominium from 2016 – 2023. During the court hearing the judge stated the alleged “ghost employee” scheme started in 2020. There were conditions imposed and the judge made sure Herrouet understood and agreed – see the post.
The State Attorney said Herrouet forged and manipulated online payroll records that resulted in her taking more than $140,000 from the community’s funds. How did she do that? Herrouet allegedly hired five family members and friends to work for the building, but some were already employed by an outside contractor for janitorial work in the building, meaning they were getting paid twice. Others didn’t work in the building at all. That’s where the term “ghost employee” comes from — see the post.
Residents spoke to the new media – see the post. They said that when they tried to get proof of fraud from the board and the condo management company, they felt like they weren’t getting the whole picture. One resident’s statement is in the post.
Condo owners also suggested to the news media that new legislation might be warranted based on their belief as to the underlying cause (see the post). To the contrary, this author suggests that legislation is not the answer, but rather owners (individually or as Board members) paying attention and being engaged since this involves their home and investment.
TAKEAWAY: Do you know what is happening in your condominium or homeowners’ association? If not, why not? Why do you not keep a close eye on what may be your largest investment? (Involve a community association lawyer if there are questions or issues.)
In the posts yesterday, 12/6/2025, here and here, we read that white Walmart manager alleges DEI policy led to his termination (from a PA store). Yep, one of the increasing number of reverse discrimination cases.
A former market manager at a Pennsylvania-area Walmart filed suit on Oct. 2 alleging that he was punished and eventually terminated for complaining about the conduct of two African American senior leaders through a tip line. The post has the case caption if you want to look it up. According to Robinson, Walmart’s actions were indicative of racial discrimination stemming from its DEI program, adopted around 2020. How Robinson characterized that program is in the post.
Robinson charged Walmart with violating the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a law more than 150 years old that, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the one most often used as the basis for suit), prohibits racial discrimination in employment.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 has emerged in recent years as a tool to oppose DEI programs on the premise of “reverse discrimination.” The law has been cited in suits against national and international companies such as those listed in the post. Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 functions much like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (such as in the way noted in the post). But they also differ in several important ways that might lead a worker to file under Section 1981 rather than Title VII.
For one example, Section 1981 does not put a cap on damages, increasing the payoff plaintiffs could obtain from a jury and potentially incentivizing a company to settle. Also, Section 1981 cases are not subject to the EEOC (which is a big deal under the current administration). What that means to a plaintiff is explained in the post. Further, Section 1981 complaints have a longer statute of limitations (see the post) than the 90-day Title VII window (which starts upon receipt of the right-to-sue letter from the EEOC).
In this case, Robinson alleged that the events occurred in late 2023 and 2024, resulting in his termination in early September 2024. Walmart stepped back from its DEI commitments in November 2024 (its statement as to that is in the post, as well as what it had to say about Robinson’s suit).
TAKEAWAY: The 1866 statute has been on the books for almost 160 years and is now experiencing a renaissance – employers need to know if the law’s protections apply to a given situation and, if so, what they need to show to defend against any such charge. Again, work with an employment lawyer.