Maybe not that much, depending on where you are and how "proactive" you've already been before now.

Seriously, I don't think Friday's Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will be that big a deal for most employers. The Supreme Court already decided in 2013 that the federal definition of "spouse" included same-sex spouses (assuming the marriage was legally valid where ...

I haven't had a chance to analyze yesterday's Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, so meanwhile here is a link to a "plain English" summary of the decision, and here is a link to the decision. Both from the outstanding SCOTUSblog.

We will have more on this in the not-too-distant future. Don't go away!

The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, hot off the press, is 103 pages long, but here it is. Some instant analysis:

*The due process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution compel states to recognize same-sex marriages.

*The First Amendment will continue to protect those who object to same-sex marriage for religious reasons.

The decision was 5-4 ...

The following is a scatological post, so grab a stool, have a seat, and listen up! (Or get a magazine.)

On Monday, a federal jury in Atlanta awarded two hourly warehouse workers $2.2 million in a lawsuit brought under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

The controversy started when Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, a grocery distributor, had a problem with ...

As you know, I strongly disapprove of use of the "N" word in the workplace. I don't think African-Americans should say it, and I really, really don't think people who aren't African-American should use it.

Well, this weekend President Obama used the "N" word, and he didn't say "the 'N' word." In a podcast interview with comedian Marc Maron, the President was quoted as saying

We have reached the fifth and final of our five harassment "must-haves": No retaliation.

It should be easy to avoid retaliation, right? Because retaliatory conduct is intentional - you can't "accidentally" retaliate against someone. You can't "negligently" seek payback.

To retaliate, you have to work at it.

Of course, that would make life way too simple. Employers can ...

It's the moment of truth! (Dum-dum-DUM!)

Two weeks ago, we talked about harassment "must-haves" 1 and 2: a good, plain-language policy, and training. Last week, we talked about "must-have" 3: the investigation.

Now it's time to talk about "must-have" 4: a fair, legally defensible determination of what happened and what action to take.

During the investigation phase, you wanted to ...

Last week, I posted about harassment "must-haves" for employers, and talked in detail about the first two: a good policy, and training. This week I'd like to talk about "must-have" no. 3 - a prompt, thorough, and fair investigation.

PROMPT. "Prompt," in the context of a harassment investigation, means that you act as soon as you reasonably can, and if you have to delay, you have a very ...

This is a first. I don't think I've ever agreed with Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the same time. What's the world coming to?

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie means this: if an employment decision is motivated by religion - even if the employer does not actually know the religious need of the individual - then the employer may be liable ...