Here are the four things the employer did right. Continue Reading ›
Employer's DEI mandate scores a win. Continue Reading ›
The TL;DR version. Continue Reading ›
That's one way to get employers to allow remote work. Continue Reading ›
Two recent court decisions shed some light. Continue Reading ›
UPDATE (Saturday, 9/26): The nominee is ACB! Continue Reading ›
Court says no, in one of the weirdest cases ever. Continue Reading ›
Another chapter in a continuing saga. Continue Reading ›
Can you occasionally skip the EEOC and go straight to court if there's a really good reason? Continue Reading ›
Yes, that is possible. Continue Reading ›
And one judge is not pleased. Continue Reading ›
Not enough of a record at this time, IMO. Continue Reading ›
Another federal appeals court will soon decide whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. Continue Reading ›
An important victory for age plaintiffs. Continue Reading ›
Let's look at the arguments, pro and con, that the Supreme Court is likely to hear someday. Continue Reading ›
The issue of whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation bias will have to be resolved another day. Continue Reading ›
This week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a “multimonth leave of absence is beyond the scope of a reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In doing so, the court rejected longstanding guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that a long-term medical leave is a reasonable accommodation when the leave is (1) definite and time-limited (not open ended); (2) requested in advance; and (3) likely to enable the employee to perform the essential job functions on return. Noting that under the EEOC’s position “the length of leave does not matter,” the court characterized it as an “open-ended extension” of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Continue Reading ›
(Not an actual letter from Mr. Kleber.
Last week, I received a scathing comment from Dale Kleber, a Chicago-area lawyer and a plaintiff in an age discrimination lawsuit. Mr. Kleber did not like my gut reaction to his lawsuit, which was based on an article that I’d read in The Washington Post. It appeared to me that Mr. Kleber — then a 58-year-old lawyer with roughly 30 years of experience, including experience as a CEO of a dairy industry trade group, Chief Legal Counsel, and General Counsel — was rejected for a low-level in-house staff attorney position because he was overqualified for the position, not because he was 58 years old.
Prompted by Mr. Kleber’s comment, I have now read the court papers (well, a lot of them, anyway).*
*Mr. Kleber’s case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but it is still in the very early stages. For you procedural nerds, I’ve included a summary at the end of this post. Non-nerds can skip it.
Now that I know more about Mr. Kleber’s lawsuit, I haven’t changed my mind. In other words, I still think he was rejected for being overqualified.
Can’t “overqualified” be a code word for “too old”? Yes, but not necessarily. Read on! Continue Reading ›
This is Constangy’s flagship law blog, founded in 2010 by Robin Shea, who is chief legal editor and a regular contributor. This nationally recognized blog also features posts from other Constangy attorneys in the areas of immigration, labor relations, and sports law, keeping HR professionals and employers informed about the latest legal trends.



