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 all of the changes in federal labor and employment agencies 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 3/30/2025 noted former top administrator sues state DHHS claiming disability discrimination. Can the facts be mere coincidence?
Jessica Clark, who once served as the chief operating officer (COO) for the Department of Revenue, is suing the Iowa DHHS in federal court (the case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court). According to the suit, Clark joined the Iowa Department of Administrative Services in 2008 as part of its central team. She was responsible for managing the state benefits, hiring system, human resources, and learning management. In 2011, she was promoted to COO, overseeing HR and various administrative services. Then in April 2019, the Judicial Branch promoted Clark to deputy director of HR and in 2021, DHHS hired her as its director of HR. By 2022, Clark was earning $132,828 per year — the maximum salary within her pay grade — and she alleges that DHHS director Kelly Garcia and COO Jean Slaybaugh assured her they were developing a new position for her called “human resources and general business services administrator” that had a top salary of $167,898. (All good so far, but keep reading …)
Clark’s suit then goes on to allege that in the spring of 2023, she experienced “significant personal and medical challenges,” triggering a bout of depression and intermittent FMLA leave. She returned to work in a few weeks, but on a reduced schedule, and continued to rely on intermittent FMLA leave for medical appointments. Her suit alleges that it was at that point that she began to receive noticeably increased criticism from DHHS leadership.
On July 24, 2023, DHHS allegedly solicited applications for the newly created position of HR and general business services administrator. Clark alleges she applied, confident the job would be hers based on the “repeated assurances from Garcia and Slaybaugh” that it was created specifically for her. But then on Aug. 25, 2023, Melissa Bird, a former public health worker with no HR experience, was selected for the job. Deputy Director Sarah Reisetter allegedly told Clark her recent FMLA-related absences had affected her team’s cohesion — meaning that Clark’s use of FMLA leave had influenced the decision to deny her the promotion. (But yes, the saga continued – keep reading … )
In November 2023, CDHHS allegedly denied Clark’s request to temporarily telecommute and to reschedule noncritical meetings and deadlines, thus providing her flexibility to take time off for medical appointments. In March 2024, Bird and Deputy Division Administrator Cassie Tracey allegedly informed Clark that her “services were no longer required.” Clark alleges that she was fired “without documented cause despite her years of exemplary service, recent compliance with heightened demands, and ongoing medical needs.”
What Clark seeks by way of damages, and the statutes under which she brought suit, is in the post. The state had not filed a response to the suit as of the date of the post. The agency spokesperson said it does not comment on pending litigation.
TAKEAWAY: There are so many ways this suit could go and so many questions to be answered, including whether Clark’s use of FMLA leave was indeed the basis of her not getting the promotion, how the successful applicant differs from Clark as to any protected characteristics, and more. Employers should carefully document the (hopefully legal) basis for decisions.
The post on Monday 3/31/2025 was about private sector workforce reductions – how should employers handle them? Unless your head has been buried in the sand (never a good idea), you know that massive federal workforce reductions have bene a daily news item – along with reports of criticism about the way they are occurring. So the question is, will private companies follow suit? Some economic signs, such as the continuing low unemployment rate, do not point in that direction. But layoffs increased 28% in January as compared to the previous month, and WARN filings, as well as increasing company addnouncements of projected future layoffs, tell a different story. And other things listed in the post also point to more private workforce reductions.
While no one likes reductions-in-force (RIFs), there is a right way – and a wrong say – to conduct them. Advance and meticulous planning and execution are required. Job actions must be analyzed based on their unique facts and circumstances, but certain steps can promote fairness, minimize disruption, stabilize morale, and reduce legal risks when conducting a RIF. They include:
- Continue to employ good performance management: this may reduce the number of necessary reductions and make the decisions easier or harder for the reason noted in the post.
- Consider other options: is a voluntary program an option? What about the other idea in the post?
- Once: try to make the reductions occur at one time, rather than staggering them. The reason this is suggested is in the post.
4. WARN: As in the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. Make sure you follow the notice requirements set forth in this statute or any applicable state law (that probably has a lower threshold) as noted in the post.
5. Process: Employ a consistent process with defined and fair criteria that is aligned with the collective bargaining agreement (if the workplace is unionized) and company policy (whether or not unionized).
There are four (4) other recommended steps, with the reasons, that are listed and described in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers are allowed to have and change the number of workers they feel appropriate for their business, but (state and) federal laws may require certain notices or other actions prior to any reduction in force. Check with an employment lawyer to make sure you do what is required given your circumstances.
The post on Tuesday 4/1/2025 told us homeowner threatened with HOA daily fines if ‘hideous’ driveway not repainted. Homeowner Associations (HOAs) are designed to maintain property aesthetics and mandate order within a community that implements and funds the governing association. Owners who choose to live in HOA communities agree, in most cases, to abide by very specific and strict rules regarding their properties. But HOA rules can change, and in many cases owners fail to read and understand all of the laws and documents (which set forth the restrictions) they agree to by buying that home. For one resident in the HOA-run retirement community, her choice of driveway color caused neighbors to file complaints and now she’s facing a litany of fines.
Cynthia Ellis, a resident of the Village of Pine Ridge, was subject to a judicial hearing on a complaint received on October 3rd about a driveway that was “not in accordance with the architectural review manual” of the HOA. The substance of the compliant is in the post.
The HOA has the authority to “review for approvals or denials regarding owners seeking to make external structural alterations,” which includes home re-paintings. Any additional repairs or improvements must meet HOA guidelines. The driveway in question must follow the guidelines (which are noted in the post). Ellis originally had a January hearing date, but due to personal reasons the hearing was moved to February. On February 7, Ellis sought another reprieve by calling the HOA’s Community Standards committee, hoping for an extension. The outcome of the hearing is noted in the post.
HOAs are notorious for strict rules and guidelines that, in many cases, seem laughable to anyone not living in the community. A few examples are in the post (and, to this author, don’t seem out of line). In many cases, what is in the new are the worst-case scenario when it comes to HOAs, but they still have the power to enforce the governing documents, including forcing owners to make costly changes and repairs they may not be able to afford.
Ellis’s case is just one of many where HOA rules have come into question. But remember that from the start, buying a home (whether located within a community association or not) requires research. It’s a buyer-beware scenario. Purchasing a home in a community association (one run by a condominium or homeowners’ association) is a voluntary choice. The owners pay periodic assessments/fees to the associations for the very things they complain about. But the problems arise when owners do not realize that their personal choices fail to meet the community standards in the governing documents. Use Ellis’ case as an example as discussed in the post.
TAKEAWAY: The key here is at the end of the post – Ellis knew the rules before purchasing and moving in. Contact a community association lawyer relative to your own condo/HOA-related issues.
The post on Wednesday 4/2/2025 explained that ‘male-only” hiring instructions lead to $1.6M settlement. Security Engineers, Inc., an Alabama-based security solutions firm, now will pay $1.6M as part of a three-year consent decree (agreement) to settle sex discrimination claims brought by the EEOC.
So what did Security (allegedly) do or not do? According to an EEOC press release, it engaged in discrimination when it denied security officer jobs and assignments to women beginning in 2017. The specifics – with where the company put it in writing! – are in the post. The EEOC alleged that the conduct violated Title VII. The settlement includes more than just the (huge) monetary relief – see the post.
This should not have happened. Why? Employers violate federal equal employment opportunity laws when they publish job advertisements that show a preference for, or discourage the applications of, members of a particular race, religion, color, sex, age or national origin (as noted in EEOC guidance). This is also true for ads that discourage applications from people based on their disability status or genetic information. In 2024 the EEOC settled cases involving similar sex discrimination allegations. A few examples are in the post.
But one aspect of the EEOC’s anti-sex discrimination enforcement under Title VII has been curtailed since the January 2025 inauguration: allegations of discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The agency directed its staff to stop processing claims based on gender identity and sexual orientation in late January. And the EEOC has gone even further – see the post.
TAKEAWAY: At least when it comes to discrimination on the basis of sex (which for the current administration means male and female), the EEOC will enforce non-discrimination. Contact an employment lawyer as to any (alleged) discrimination or EEOC charges.
In the post on Thursday 4/3/2025, we learned How employers can navigate new joint guidance from DOJ and EEOC on DEI and workplace discrimination. This should be considered required reading for owners and managers/supervisors. In ~mid-March the EEOC and US Department of Justice (DOJ) released two technical assistance documents focused on potential unlawful discrimination related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace. While DEI initiatives have become an integral part of workplace culture (with aims noted in the post), there is now risk associated with such initiatives following the Trump administration’s various anti-DEI executive orders (EOs) issued in January (see our posts of 3/5/2025 and 3/6/2025). Employers have been waiting on agency guidance on what changes they will be making as a result of the EOs. Now the EEOC – DOJ joint technical guidance is out and seeks to address some questions.
The first guidance is a one-page flyer from the EEOC titled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI At Work.” The flyer outlines commonly understood information regarding Title VII’s prohibitions. And while DEI is not defined under Title VII, the flyer gives some guidance on what may be unlawful along with examples of what potential discrimination might look like. That is all described in the post.
The EEOC also issued a document titled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination At Work,” an FAQ-style document providing more information on the topics covered in the DEI flyer. This FAQ contains a reminder from the EEOC as to whom Title VII’s protections apply and the agency’s position on reverse discrimination and the standard of proof for race discrimination claims (see the post for both of those). The guidance also talks about how employers can or cannot limit, segregate or classify workers (as it specifically relates to Dei) – again, see the post. And the DEI FAQ provides that Title VII does not provide an exception based on “diversity interest.” It gives specific examples of what employers cannot do – see the post. And finally, providing a roadmap to employees (or others acting on their behalf), the FAQ notes the basis on which courts have held that opposition to a DEI training may constitute protected activity (yes, see the post).
So despite the entirety being important, what are some key takeaways from the joint guidance?
- Title VII Applies to All Employees Equally. The post has a more detailed description.
- Unlawful Discrimination in DEI Practices. Again, the post contains more details on the bases on which actions may NOT be taken.
- Retaliation Protections for Employees. Employees who object to unlawful DEI practices or training may be protected from retaliation under Title VII. More details are in the post.
Additional takeaways are listed and detailed in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must know how to stand on the ground that has shifted under them – reading this joint guidance and discussing it with an employment lawyer is a good first step.
The post on Friday 4/4/2025 noted that a parking space sold for an eye popping (high 6-digit) price. Then add HOA fees on top of that … OK, Boston is notorious for expensive parking spots, but did you ever think you might need to take a mortgage out for on?
Mass transit will soon be running from another area so fewer people will be driving up to Boston. But fresh in memories are the crazy prices being paid for parking – at least $20 to $50. Per day. (For those not good at math, that’s $100 – $250 per week or $430 – $1,075 per month or $5,200 – $13,000 per year.) That all adds up pretty quickly. So it should not come as a surprise that there was a parking spot for sale in Boston for $750,000.00. That is not a typo. And that’s just for the space; there are other monthly fees and it has some stipulations.
The official listing (which is linked in the post) for 70 Brimmer Street Garage in Beacon Hill noted that the average monthly mortgage payment would be around $4,800, plus homeowner’s association fees. Is this common? See the post.
The Brimmer Street Garage started selling parking spaces in the 1970s for about $7,500. As the area flourished, the demand and value of the parking spaces also increased. The changes since the last time the space was listed, and how long it took to go under contract, are all in the post. In all fairness, there is a full-service aspect to the garage; see the post for what you get in addition to the ability to park there.
TAKEAWAY: it’s not common but remember that condominium (and even homeowner’s) associations can have commercial components.
Finally, in the post yesterday 4/5/2025, we saw that Judge blocks dismantling of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), orders employees reinstated. Just one of the latest legal pieces in the Administration’s saga …
As of March 28, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the CFPB, finding that it acted “completely in violation of law.” Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a preliminary injunction that required the administration to reinstate any terminated CFPB employees, rescind the cancellation of any contracts, allow the workforce to access their computers and return to the office, resume statutorily required work and maintain any records held by the organization. What the Judge wrote in support of her injunction is in the post.
The CFPB was created by Congress to safeguard Americans against unfair business practices in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. But the President has targeted it for elimination as part of his efforts to slash the federal government. What Trump said as one reason he wants to shutter the CFPB is in the house.
The Judge’s ruling said the Trump administration acted in “complete disregard” for Congress when it attempted to unilaterally dismantle the agency. And it flouted her prior order – see the post. Therefore the Judge felt there was no alternative but to issue the injunction – see the post for what she wrote. But the Judge did not stop there – she also criticized action taken by the Trump administration after the suit was initiated – again, see the post.
In court proceedings, Trump administration officials claimed the stop-work order that sent the vast majority of CFPB employees home was a “common practice at the beginning of a new administration”. Other claims made by Justice Department lawyers are noted in the post. But Judge Jackson specifically called out the irreparable harm done to one of the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, Pastor Eva Steege, who sought help from the CFPB to forgive her public service loans before she died. The Judge noted that with the Trump administration dismantling the CFPB as Steege requested help, she never got an appointment. What Steege’s sword declaration noted might be the effect of the Trump administration’s actions relative to the CFPB is in the post verbatim. Steege died on March 15 – her prediction has come true. How the Judge dealt with that relative to her injunction is also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: The law dictates who and when some federal employees can be discharged and agencies can be closed – but that law must be followed.
York, Pennsylvania 17403