1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |HR-Related Coronavirus Q&A: Our Answers to Your Questions

HR-Related Coronavirus Q&A: Our Answers to Your Questions

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.21.20

We have drafted an ‘HR-Related Coronavirus Q&A’ in response to recent developments, and we thought that it might be of interest to you. You will find this Q&A here. In it, we take a look at our clients’ most commonly asked questions regarding the impact of the virus.

The questions and answers in this Q&A are of course of a general nature and should not be considered to be comprehensive legal advice on specific questions and/or cases. Do not hesitate to contact our team if you have any specific questions and/or would like any advice with regard to a concrete situation.

You will also find ‘Coronavirus Workplace Guidelines’ for US employers, which include useful tips and recommendations of a general reach as well (EU-based employers may disregard the US-specific guidelines).

Our team will continue to closely monitor developments and keep you posted.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24

Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard

On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. ...