Employee Protection Laws: What Claims Can Workers Bring against Employers?

EEOC charge filing requires submission within 180 days of discriminatory act (300 days in states with parallel fair employment practices agency), with strict deadline enforcement and limited equitable tolling available. EEOC investigation typically includes employer response (position statement), evidence gathering, mediation invitation, and determination of reasonable cause or dismissal with right to sue letter. Right to sue letter issued by EEOC permits federal court filing within 90 days, with state law claims often having separate longer deadlines (typically 1-3 years) creating dual-track litigation timing. McDonnell Douglas Corp. .. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) burden-shifting framework governs most discrimination cases at summary judgment: plaintiff establishes prima facie case, employer articulates legitimate reason, plaintiff shows pretext for discrimination. Our discrimination litigation practice handles EEOC charge preparation, agency response coordination, and parallel federal court pleading strategy across discrimination claims.

At-will employment doctrine permits termination for any non-illegal reason in most US jurisdictions, with wrongful termination claims requiring violation of specific statutory protection (discrimination, retaliation, public policy) or contractual provision. Discriminatory termination based on protected characteristic (race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin) provides Title VII, ADEA, or ADA claim with parallel state law remedies often broader in scope and damages. Retaliation termination after employee exercises protected activity (opposing discrimination, filing complaint, requesting accommodation, FMLA leave) provides separate claim under each underlying statute and parallel state whistleblower laws. Constructive discharge occurs when employer creates intolerable working conditions forcing employee to resign, with substantial proof requirements under Penn State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) framework. Our discrimination and harassment practice handles wrongful termination claim analysis, builds evidence supporting causal connection between protected activity and adverse action, and pursues parallel state law remedies that often provide more substantial recovery.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) held that Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, fundamentally expanding federal LGBTQ employment protection. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 144 S. Ct. 967 (April 2024) held that Title VII transfer claims require only "some harm" rather than "significant" or "material" harm, substantially lowering threshold for adverse employment action and expanding cognizable claims. Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023) heightened employer burden in Title VII religious accommodation cases, requiring "substantial" cost showing rather than de minimis burden under prior TWA v. Hardison framework. Burlington Northern v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) established retaliation framework requiring materially adverse action that could dissuade reasonable worker from filing charge, with broader scope than substantive discrimination claims. Our employment discrimination practice handles post-Bostock LGBTQ claims, Muldrow transfer challenges, and Groff religious accommodation cases that have substantially reshaped recent Title VII litigation.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201) requires payment of federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour since 2009, with state and local minimums often higher) and overtime at 1.5x regular rate for hours over 40 in workweek for non-exempt employees. Exempt vs non-exempt classification determines overtime eligibility, with "white-collar" exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, and outside sales positions requiring salary basis plus duties tests under 29 C.F.R. Part 541. DOL final rule (April 2024) raised salary threshold for white-collar exemptions to $43,888 (July 2024) and $58,656 (January 2025), though Texas federal court struck down rule nationwide in November 2024 with appeals pending. Common FLSA violations include misclassification of independent contractors, off-the-clock work, automatic meal deductions, and unpaid pre-shift or post-shift activities, often supporting collective actions with substantial damages exposure. Our wage and hour practice handles exemption analysis, calculates back wages with liquidated damages, and prepares collective action complaints when systematic overtime or minimum wage violations affect groups of workers.

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2601) provides eligible employees up to 12 weeks unpaid leave per year for serious health conditions, family member care, childbirth/adoption, or military family leave, with reinstatement to same or equivalent position. Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA, effective June 27, 2023) requires employers with 15+ employees to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related limitations, with EEOC final regulations (effective June 2024) clarifying scope and procedures. ADA reasonable accommodation requires interactive process between employee and employer to identify accommodations that enable essential job functions, absent undue hardship to employer. Common accommodation requests include modified schedules, leave beyond FMLA, equipment modifications, reassignment to vacant positions, and remote work arrangements with substantial litigation over interactive process adequacy. Our FMLA practice handles leave eligibility analysis, runs the interactive accommodation process with employers, and pursues claims when reinstatement rights or accommodation requests are denied.

Title VII class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 require common questions of law or fact predominating with typicality, adequacy, and numerosity requirements, with Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) substantially tightening class certification standards. FLSA collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) require similarly situated workers to opt in (rather than opt out as in Rule 23), with conditional certification framework typically resulting in larger groups than employment Rule 23 classes. State law class actions (California PAGA, Illinois Wage Payment, New York Labor Law) often provide broader certification and recovery framework with substantial parallel federal litigation. Recent developments include Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California (2017) personal jurisdiction limits, parallel arbitration enforcement under Epic Systems v. Lewis (2018), and Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements continuing to limit class action availability in many contexts. Our labor and employment law practice handles class certification analysis, FLSA collective action coordination, and parallel state-law class action strategy across multi-jurisdictional employment proceedings.

McLaren Macomb (NLRB, February 2023) held that broad non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses in severance agreements violate Section 7 of NLRA by interfering with employees' protected rights, fundamentally changing severance agreement drafting practices. Cemex Construction Materials Pacific (NLRB, August 2023) restored bargaining order remedy when employer commits unfair labor practices during union election campaign, substantially strengthening union organizing through NLRB. Stericycle, Inc. (NLRB, August 2023) heightened scrutiny of employer work rules including confidentiality policies, non-solicitation rules, and social media policies under NLRA Section 7 framework. FTC noncompete rule (announced April 2024, effective September 4, 2024) banning most noncompete agreements was struck down nationwide by Texas federal court (August 2024) with FTC appeal pending, leaving state-by-state noncompete enforcement landscape. Coordinated labor laws defense reviews severance agreement language for NLRA compliance, analyzes employer work rules under Stericycle framework, and coordinates noncompete enforcement strategy across state law variation.