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: yes, there is still instability and fluctuation in federal labor and employment law – and more expected with an EEOC quorum in place now – so check with us (or another employment lawyer) before taking action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 10/19/2025 was about the $2M wrongful termination: how employment law changed in 2025. Know the law (federal and state) that applies to your workplace!
Yep, the wrongful termination lawsuit that shocked Corporate America this year didn’t involve a C-suite executive or complex securities violations. Sarah Martinez, a marketing coordinator at a mid-sized tech company, was awarded $2.3 million after being fired for refusing to work unpaid overtime during her pregnancy. Her case represents a sea change in employment law that’s affecting both workers and employers nationwide (and it’s probably not done yet). So let’s look at (some of) the major changes to employment law so far in 2025.
Expanded Pregnancy Discrimination Protections: The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’s implementation has created new accommodation requirements that many employers are still struggling to understand. New protections include:
- Reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions
- Temporary transfers to less strenuous positions when needed
- And more as noted in the post.
Enhanced Retaliation Protections: Courts are increasingly recognizing broader categories of protected activity, making retaliation claims easier for workers to prove and more expensive for employers (to defend or settle).
Remote Work and Disability Rights: The pandemic’s work-from-home precedent created new disability accommodation expectations, with courts ruling that remote work must be considered as a reasonable accommodation in many situations. But this should no longer take employers by surprise.
The Sarah Martinez Case: A New Standard. Sarah, age 28, worked as a marketing coordinator earning $52,000 a year. When she announced her pregnancy, her supervisor began assigning additional unpaid projects “to prove her commitment before maternity leave.” There was mandatory overtime during pregnancy, a denial of requested accommodations (frequent breaks, modified lifting), a hostile work environment (see the post for the details), and a constructive termination (again, see the post).
As noted, the verdict came in at $2.3 million. That was broken down to economic damages of $850,000 (covering lost wages and benefits for career trajectory disruption, future earning capacity analysis showing promotion delays, and retirement savings impact from career interruption), emotional distress damages of $900,000 (based on those things noted in the post), and punitive damages of $550,000 (again, see the post for what went into this award).
The Rise of “Stealth Discrimination” Cases – Modern employment discrimination rarely involves obvious statements or actions. Instead, there are subtle patterns that require a sophisticated legal analysis to prove. Common stealth discrimination tactics include performance improvement plans immediately following protected activity, restructuring and layoffs targeting protected class employees, and the other things listed and described in the post. Let’s look at an example resulting in a $1.8 Million Age Discrimination Verdict.
Robert Chen, age 58, had been a sales director at a pharmaceutical company for 12 years with consistent excellent reviews. After the company hired a 32-year-old VP of Sales, Robert’s territory was reduced and he was excluded from leadership meetings and placed on a performance improvement plan. So what did the suit bring out? A statistical analysis showing employees over 50 were disproportionately targeted in “restructuring”, Emails revealing age-related comments in management communications, and more as noted in the post. All culminating in the $1.8 million verdict including front pay through planned retirement.
New Employer Liability Areas seemingly crop up daily. Some to be aware of now are:
- Social Media and Privacy: Employers monitoring employee social media faces new legal challenges, especially regarding protected political activity and union organizing.
- Independent Contractor Misclassification: New Department of Labor rules make it harder to classify workers as independent contractors, with significant penalty exposure for violations.
- Pay Equity and Transparency: see the post for details; and
- AI and Hiring Discrimination: again, see the post for details.
Given the number and breadth of changes in employment law, what areas should employers specifically review?
- Updated pregnancy accommodation policies reflecting new federal requirements
- Remote work accommodation assessments for disability requests
- Pay equity audits for the reasons noted in the post
- Social media policy reviews for the purpose noted in the post; and
- AI hiring system audits for, you guessed it, the reason noted in the post.
Administrative charges and lawsuits can be costly to employers. They can include catastrophic jury verdicts from preventable situations, potential Class action exposure from systemic policy problems, government investigation costs and penalties, and (something that doesn’t get press but is a major consideration) reputational damage affecting recruitment and business.
TAKEAWAY: 2025 has been a gerbil wheel of employment law, with employers needing to know what to do to keep the wheel moving or to make it stop. Work with an employment lawyer now and going forward.
The post on Monday 10/20/2025 told us business settles suit after sexual harassment EEOC complaint. Look at the facts!
Action Insulation Co., a general contractor specializing in insulation installation and asbestos abatement in Georgia, has agreed to pay $40,000 to settle a sexual harassment and constructive discharge lawsuit filed by the EEOC. Let’s take a closer look to find out why.
The EEOC suit said Action’s owner subjected a female office manager to sexual harassment, including by making unwanted sexual comments and jokes, showing her lewd photographs, and more (yes, sadly there is more) as detailed in the post. The EEOC alleged that the office manager resisted the owner’s advances and complained twice to her supervisor, but (no surprise here) the company took no action to stop the harassment. Then, the EEOC alleges, the office manager had no choice but to resign after the harassment escalated to physical assault.
A statement from the EEOC’s regional office is in the post. Action’s alleged conduct violated Title VII. The EEOC filed suit in federal court in Georgia when conciliation failed. And now the matter has settled. The three-year consent decree requires Action to provide the noted monetary relief to the employee and non-monetary relief including revising and redistributing its anti-harassment policies and the other things described in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Harassment is (illegal and) horrible, but especially so when it is by action of the business owner. Legally-complaint behavior should start at the top.
The post on Tuesday 10/21/2025 advised Montessori students deprived of playgrounds at heart of legal tug-of-war with condominium association.
This is not a local story, but it well could be. Here a Montessori school has been prevented from opening its playground to its students because local residents think it is too noisy (which was there first: the school or the housing?) Since the start of the school year, the hundred or so children enrolled in the private bilingual school have had to do without the recreation area (which is about 100 square feet) based on a court order issued in May. The basis for the Court’s decision is in the post and goes back to something from 1834 (not a typo!). So the condominium association was successful and the children had to stop playing in that yard area.
The school appealed but the Court has kept its decision in place at least pending mediation between the school and condo association. Different parts of the government issued different statements from slightly different viewpoints – see the post.
So how do you think this would have turned out in the US?
TAKEAWAY: Recorded documents and laws are almost always binding on all interested parties, regardless of an unintended impact. Get a community association lawyer involved if it concerns a condominium or homeowners’ association.
The post on Wednesday 10/22/2025 told us the EEOC sues staffing firm for workers with disabilities, alleging ADA violations. One would think that employer should know better … OK, off the soap box and let’s take a closer look …
In the EEOC’s suit filed September 24, a former employee accused disability employment staffing firm Peak Performers of disability discrimination, alleging that managers denied her requests for unpaid leave to attend depression and anxiety treatments twice a week, and later, several weeks of unpaid time off for outpatient treatment. Despite asking for two days off per week to attend treatment appointments, the employee was only granted permission to leave once a week. Some time later, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. She communicated details of her outpatient program to her manager and requested four to six weeks of unpaid leave. How management responded is in the post and, according to the EEOC, violated the ADA (and led to the filing of the suit).
Ultimately, the plaintiff completed her outpatient program after three weeks and would have been able to return to work (which ties into the ADA violation count as noted in the post). The EEOC also alleged that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA, including what is noted in the post as specifically related to this situation.
Sadly, this is not the first time a disability-focused organization has been accused of disability discrimination. EEOC and Didlake, a nonprofit government contractor employing people with disabilities, agreed to resolve a lawsuit last summer for more than $1 million. What that involved is detailed in the post.
While the EEOC’s fact sheet for the ADA (linked in the post) does not outline mental health guidance, the DOL has provided some parameters regarding reasonable mental health accommodations under the FMLA (also linked in the post). Mental health conditions requiring inpatient care and others as listed in the post are a part of the continuing care provision of the DOL’s fact sheet on mental health accommodations.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must fulfill their obligation to engage in the interactive accommodation process; failing to do so not only harms the employee when it comes to mental health, but can be extremely costly (in many ways) for the employer. Get assistance from an employment lawyer.
In the post on Thursday 10/23/2025 we read that the Federal Trade Commission warns healthcare companies about restrictive noncompete contracts. And you thought this was a done deal …
The FTC is urging major healthcare employers and staffing companies to review their employment agreements to root out any restrictive noncompete clauses. Recently FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson sent letters (linked in the post) to an unspecified number of healthcare companies warning them that regulators will enforce the law against unfair or anticompetitive noncompetes. Does the letter allay any possible fears by those companies? See the post.
These letters are part of the philosophical (read: change of administration) shift at the FTC relative to noncompetes. As noted in our post of Monday 9/15/2025, the agency has pivoted away from the total ban espoused by the former administration toward a targeted enforcement strategy. This should make employers in the medical field a bit happier as that industry commonly relies on noncompete agreements especially due to the status and sheer number of doctors affected as noted in the post). But the frequency of use of noncompetes does not mean they’re popular. What doctors dislike about them is detailed in the post (and mirrors other professionals subject to noncompetes, but also is a bargained-for part of the consideration in exchange for that employment opportunity).
While the Biden administration had sought to eliminate noncompetes for most workers (the post mentions an exception) altogether, that has now changed. Again, see our post of Monday 9/15/2025 where we talk about the current FTC position on the nationwide ban. That ban was subject to litigation around the country, with mixed results (see the post for just 3 court decisions). But as a result of the litigation, the ban never went into effect. And now with the FTC’s decision to step back, it likely never will — at least not during this administration. But in its place the FTC plans to go after particularly onerous noncompetes as part of its enforcement authority.
Recently the FTC asked the public for comments, with a specific call to action – this is similar to what the DOJ is doing in the immigration arena (see our post of Thursday 9/11/2025). And now Ferguson is following through on his recent promises (linked in the post) to send certain letters. What the letters ask of the recipients is noted (and quoted) in the post.
Admittedly there is some grey area about what makes a noncompete illegal and that may make compliance a bit tricky. But a recent FTC action against a pet cremation company may provide a roadmap to employers about regulators’ bar for enforcement. The suit (linked in the post) was filed after the FTC determined that the subject company imposed noncompete contracts on almost all of its employees prohibiting them from working in the same industry for one year after leaving the company.
The FTC’s response to questions about which companies had received the letters or why they were selected is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Noncompete enforcement by the FTC is probably a thing of the past for most employers, but care in crafting them is still a recommended practice (especially as state law may still be in play). Again, an employment lawyer can help.
The post on Friday 10/24/2025 was court says man cannot keep neighbors from using HOA trail between his two properties.
A NC homeowner’s association has won a lawsuit involving a pedestrian easement at the center of a viral video last year. The video (embedded in the post) showed a confrontation between two men over a trail entrance between two properties. One man was seen jackhammering the trail entrance. Backstory…
Keith and Angela Myers own both of the subject properties in the neighborhood. More than 30 years ago the community’s developer gave certain space crossing (or splitting) the properties to the homeowner’s association (HOA) by way of an easement. Keith Myers argues that a later agreement filed by the town allowed him to close off the trail access and do what he wanted with the easement property.
Because Myers wanted to keep his neighbors and others from using the path between his two properties, he placed concrete bollards on the trail and tore up a portion of the trail with a jackhammer. The HOA disagreed with Myers’ argument and took him to court. Recently the Court ruled in favor of the HOA including injunctive relief (as detailed in the post). And there’s more in the Court order that should be a warning to others; see the post.
NOTE there is a VID embedded in the post for more details.
TAKEAWAY: This serves as reaffirmation that recorded documents matter. IN the condo/HOA area we usually deal with the Declaration (of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions or CC&Rs) but it can be something similar – here it was an easement. If you have an issue, consult a community association lawyer.
Finally, in the post yesterday 10/25/2025, we learned that HR records in the cloud can create a perfect storm – especially for file review.
In today’s world we deal with hybrid workplaces, conversations across Slack threads and performance feedback via email, and personnel records are no longer stuffed in filing cabinets or even designated HRIS platforms. But despite that, many employers still treat personnel files as static collections of paper documents and forms, ignoring the vast — and often legally relevant! — trail left in digital formats. That is a legal minefield for those employers.
Many states’ laws give employees the right to inspect or obtain copies of their personnel records upon request. And if the HR team can’t produce key performance-related documents because they were in a deleted email account or were wiped along with a departing employee’s laptop or anything else, your company could face serious legal consequences. That’s why HR professionals must recalibrate recordkeeping strategies – no longer is preserving the digital side of the personnel file a best practice, it is more of a legal imperative. Because of that, we are going to take a closer look.
One might say the threshold question is what constitutes “personnel records”? The answer is “it depends”. On whether there is a state law that applies or whether any handbook or employment agreement defines the term or other things. How California defines the term is in the post.
But in most places, personnel records are not limited to traditional HR documents like formal reviews or reprimands. Court decisions have recognized that emails, manager notes and even internal chats — if used to evaluate performance or justify employment decisions — can fall within the scope of a personnel record that is subject to review by an employee. And failing to produce those documents upon request (within any statutory or other deadline) is not only a compliance violation, but it can damage an employer’s credibility if litigation ensues. And when the burden is on the employer, not having the documents can mean an adverse decision.
It is not an overstatement to say that digital (or electronic) documents are the new (or by now perhaps we should say current) frontier. Day-to-day feedback, coaching and performance management now take place digitally. Other communications or actions might also live in the digital world – see examples in the post. And because they are not front and center as is a filing cabinet, it is easy to overlook what is in digital format — until they become pivotal in a legal dispute. Despite how important those digital things could be to an employer, many purge the data when employees leave. What are some common actions taken when employment ends? See the post. While it is easy to understand why an employer might want to take those actions, it can result in the unintentional destruction of key evidence that employers are legally obligated to retain and could benefit from in future litigation.
Does the term “personnel records/files” mean the same thing as “legal files”? Well, again it depends. It is common for HR teams to maintain two sets of employee-related documentation: a personnel file, which may be accessible to the employee, and the legal or confidential file, which may include sensitive or investigatory information. The personnel file does not necessarily (need to) include every piece of digital correspondence, but much should still be preserved somewhere within your system. Some examples (including emails detailing performance concerns that factored into employment decisions) are described in the post. The common thread between all of the digital records is that they need to be identified, saved and retained (for the length of time noted in the post). And how long is that in reality?
Once again, the answer is “it depends”. Different issues have different deadlines (called statutes of limitations). But there is a best practice noted in the post (which should be tempered by your state’s laws as confirmed by an employment lawyer). The documents that might pertain to are listed in the post. And if there is litigation or a government investigation pending, a litigation hold must be put in place to preserve ALL relevant documentation — digital or otherwise — until the matter is fully resolved. If you are not sure as to relevancy, save/retain it!
Given all of the foregoing, there are some best practices for HR professionals in this digital era. HR should consider the following steps:
1. Implement a digital records policy. Develop a written policy for identifying and preserving digital communications related to employee performance, conduct and complaints. This policy should involve HR, IT and the employment lawyer(s).
2. Train managers on what to save.Managers are often the first to receive or generate relevant digital communications. Train them to recognize which emails, chats or notes should be sent to HR for inclusion in the employee’s record (and whether or not they also need to save copies).
3. Review before you wipe.What this entails, and the reason for it, is detailed in the post.
4. Segment storage appropriately.As discussed above, there might be a reason to keep certain things in different places/files. Know how to differentiate them – see the post.
5. Conduct periodic audits.This should go without saying, but it still needs to be said. How often you should do it, and what you should do, is in the post.
Finally, keep track of what is not retained in the digital file. Because there might come a day in the future when that is as or more important than what is in the file.
TAKEAWAY: HR must live in the digital world and know what that means for anything related to an employee or the employer’s rules/policies. Work with an employment lawyer.