Top 2024 Employment Law Cases from SHRM Annual Conference
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is the largest HR professional organization in the US. At SHRM’s Annual 2024 Conference, attorney Louis Lessig, SHRM-SCP, a partner at Brown & Connery in New Jersey, highlighted several recent employment law decisions, three of which I share with you here, including the lessons to take away from each case:
CASE 1: Employees Don’t Need to Show ‘Significant’ Harm for Title VII Claims
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (U.S. Supreme Court, April 17, 2024): A plainclothes police officer was transferred to a less prestigious position that had the same pay but different hours and duties. She sued, claiming sex discrimination. A lower court dismissed the case, saying she didn’t suffer any significant harm to be able to bring the suit. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, saying the worker “does not have to show … that the harm incurred was ‘significant’ or serious.”
The lesson: This important ruling eases the path for employees to bring Title VII legal claims. While workers must show they suffered “some” harm, that harm doesn’t need to be significant. This ruling also will make it harder for employers to get plaintiff cases dismissed on summary judgment.
CASE 2: Liability for Discrimination by Artificial Intelligence-based Hiring Algorithms
Mobley v. Workday, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, April 29, 2024): In an ongoing case, a job applicant alleged that Workday’s artificial intelligence-based hiring algorithms discriminated against him and other applicants. A key question is whether software vendors like Workday, rather than just employers, can be liable in such bias cases.
The lesson: See our Transition Strategies September 2024 blog post on algorithmic discrimination in Artificial Intelligence for more information on this hot topic. This case validates that employers should ask vendors how their algorithms are created and what they are specifically doing in the background. Vendors should hold routine audits and employers need to know what happens if there are discriminatory outcomes. Employers may be on the hook if vendors discriminate. Look for vendors to change their contract terms with employers on liability, and who is responsible for what.
CASE 3: Retaliation When Employer Disparaged Employee Who Won a Back Pay Settlement
Su v. Bevins & Son, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, May 7, 2024): After an employee won a back-pay settlement, his employer retaliated by publicly criticizing the worker in social media posts, including encouraging people to examine the employee’s criminal background. The worker sued for retaliation and a district court sided with him, saying that free speech laws don’t give companies carte blanche to use social media to publicly shame employees who exercise their federal labor-law rights.
The lesson: Silence is golden when responding to employee legal complaints or legal victories. Companies who publicly express negative reactions to—or comments about—employees who file legal, safety, or labor-law complaints can be accused of retaliation due to the chilling effect that has upon other employees’ decisions to feel safe to exercise their rights.