{"id":316,"date":"2021-02-19T19:43:50","date_gmt":"2021-02-19T19:43:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/?p=316"},"modified":"2023-11-08T18:40:25","modified_gmt":"2023-11-08T18:40:25","slug":"our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>As we turn the page on 2020, we offer a brief look back at several significant employment decisions over the past year.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in <em>Bostock v. Clayton County<\/em>, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020), recognizing that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected by Title VII. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2020\/06\/25\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-cases-5\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Click here<\/a> to read more on the decision.<\/li>\n<li>In <em>Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morressey-Berru<\/em>, 140 S.Ct. 2049 (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court also weighed in on the scope of the ministerial exception under federal anti-discrimination laws. At issue before the Court was whether the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits courts from intervening in employment disputes (e.g., discrimination claims under the ADA and ADEA) involving teachers at religious schools. The Supreme Court ruled that \u201c<em>[w]hen a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and teacher threatens the school\u2019s independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow<\/em>.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Interestingly, the scope of the ministerial exception and its application remain open issues that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (\u201cSJC\u201d) will likely address in 2021. Keep reading for our <strong>Cases to Watch<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Also at the state level, the SJC issued several important employment decisions. In <em>Hlatky v. Steward Health Care Sys., Inc.<\/em>, 484 Mass. 566 (2020), the SJC affirmed a $10 million breach of contract damage award in favor of a medical researcher, finding that the damages in question, including the loss of her laboratory, equipment, and cell samples, were not too speculative and constituted the loss of her \u201clife\u2019s work.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>In <em>Parker v. Enernoc<\/em><em>, <\/em>484 Mass. 128 (2020), the SJC clarified that commissions are wages under the Massachusetts Wage Act (and subject to treble damages when unpaid) as soon as the employee completes the work. The SJC also suggested that treble damages may be available where an employer terminates an employee to avoid paying such commissions. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2020\/02\/26\/but-i-would-have-earned-it-treble-damages-for-lost-wages\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Click here<\/a> to read more.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Not all important decisions from 2020 came from the highest courts in the land. Below are a few important 2020 cases that may have flown under the radar, as well as a few to keep an eye on in 2021.<\/p>\n<h1><span style=\"color: #03416b;\"><strong>Restrictive Covenants<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n<p>Ever since Massachusetts enacted statutory non-compete reform in 2018, courts have been casting a critical eye towards post-employment restrictions \u2013 even those not expressly covered by the new law (i.e. non-solicitation provisions). As the SJC re-affirmed in <em>Automile Holdings, LLC v. McGovern,<\/em> 438 Mass. 797, 808 (2020), a post-employment restriction is \u201conly reasonable, and thus enforceable, if it is (1) necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, (2) reasonably limited in time and space, and (3) consonant with the public interest.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Below are a few recent examples where Massachusetts courts have refused to enforce over-reaching restrictions.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\">New Employer\u2019s Solicitation Not a Violation by Former Employee<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><em>Townsend Oil Co., Inc. v. Tuccinardi<\/em>, C.A. No. 04024 (Suffolk Sup. Ct. Jan. 16, 2020)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>When Tuccinardi left his employment with Townsend Oil in 2019, he was bound by a post-employment restriction that stated he could not \u201csolicit or attempt to solicit, directly or indirectly\u201d any client or customer of his employer. Two weeks later, he joined Devaney Energy. After Devaney Energy sent out a mailer to potential customers, listing Tuccinardi as the contact-person, Townsend Oil sued for breach of Tuccinardi\u2019s non-solicit obligations.<\/p>\n<p>The court declined to enforce the restrictions. Noting that Tuccinardi was not involved in the mailers\u2019 design or distribution, the court found no evidence that Tuccinardi engaged in prohibited \u201cindirect solicitation.\u201d Further, relying on the dictionary definition of &#8220;solicit,&#8221; the court held \u201cit is not at all clear that Tuccinardi would violate his non-solicitation obligations by accepting [a call from a former customer] or explaining Devaney\u2019s current offer to new customers.\u201d The court also reiterated a well-established principle that a post-employment restriction is enforceable only \u201cto protect the employer&#8217;s good will, not to appropriate the good will of the employee.\u201d<\/p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Former Employer May Not Harass and Threaten Enforcement in Bad Faith<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><em>Eaton v. Veterans Inc.<\/em>, 435 F. Supp. 3d 277 (D. Mass. 2020)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>When Eaton was hired by Veterans, she signed a two-year non-competition and non-solicitation agreement. When she was later promoted, she was not asked to sign a new agreement. She was unhappy in her position and left for a similar position elsewhere. A few days later, Veterans called her and asked if she had accepted the new position. Eaton alleged that after she confirmed her new position, Veterans made no effort to ask whether she would be using their confidential information or trade upon its goodwill, nor did Veterans \u201cidentify any legitimate business reason that would support the enforcement of the non-compete agreement so as to preclude Ms. Eaton from continuing her work at [new employer].\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Instead, Veterans immediately called Eaton\u2019s new employer and threatened to take legal action if it did not sever its relationship with her. Because of this call, Eaton\u2019s new employer fired her. Eaton brought claims against Veterans, including for tortiously interfering with her new employment. The court allowed Eaton\u2019s claims to proceed\u2014and denied Veteran\u2019s motion to dismiss\u2014noting \u201cthe reasonable inference that [Veterans] threatened legal action in bad faith and did not seriously consider initiating any judicial proceeding against\u201d Eaton or her new employer.<\/p>\n<h1><strong><span style=\"color: #03416b;\">Fiduciary Duties<\/span><\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>The law is clear that officers, directors, and high-level executives owe their employers fiduciary duties and must protect their employers\u2019 interests, including by not actively competing with their employers during their tenure, even without an express covenant so providing. What is less clear, however, is whether fiduciary duties apply to employees farther down the chain of command.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Not All Managers Are in a \u201cPosition of Trust and Confidence\u201d<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><em>MAP Installed Building Products of Seekonk, LLC v. Ivie<\/em>, C.A. No. 1807 (Suffolk Sup. Ct. Apr. 17, 2020)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>While still employed as a Production Manager at MAP, Ivie decided to start his own company to compete with MAP, and began taking steps to create a new company, including buying equipment, filing paperwork with the state, and soliciting other employees to come work at his new venture. The court held that notwithstanding his title as \u201cmanager,\u201d there was scant evidence that Ivie, as a Production Manager, occupied \u201ca position of trust and confidence\u201d necessary to create a fiduciary duty. In the absence of such a duty, the court found that Ivie did not take any steps that were actionable by his former employer.<\/p>\n<p>The court reiterated that there is no bright-line rule around which employees owe fiduciary duties. Any employee planning to compete with his or her employer should be cautious, but as this case illustrates, planning to compete can be done lawfully in certain circumstances.<\/p>\n<h1><strong><span style=\"color: #03416b;\">Layoffs, RIFs, and Reorganizations<\/span><\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>It is important to remember that neither a global pandemic nor an economic recession shield an employer\u2019s unlawful employment practices. Rather, as the SJC has noted, that an employer may be required to \u201creduce its workforce does not mean that it is free to make its employment decisions on impermissible grounds: \u2018even during a legitimate reorganization or workforce reduction, an employer may not dismiss employees for unlawful discriminatory reasons.\u2019\u201d\u00a0<em>Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.<\/em>, 444 Mass. 34, 41\u201342 (2005). One recent decision from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (\u201cMCAD\u201d) highlights a re-organizing employer\u2019s obligation to take into account reasonable accommodations when transferring a disabled employee.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"4\">\n<li>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Right to Reasonable Accommodation in Connection With a Transfer \/ Reorganization<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><em>Cooper v. Raytheon<\/em>, MCAD No. 11-BEM-01635 (Full Comm\u2019n June 29, 2020)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Cooper, an employee with a traumatic brain injury, performed his job well \u2013 with certain reasonable accommodations \u2013 for eight years, at which point his business unit was reorganized and he was transferred to a new position where he was not provided accommodations. Thereafter, he was fired for alleged poor performance. After Cooper proved his case before an MCAD Hearing Officer, Raytheon appealed, arguing it had the right to alter or expand a disabled employee\u2019s job duties.<\/p>\n<p>On appeal, the MCAD conceded that, generally, an employer has such a right, \u201cbut of course that is not the full story.\u201d As the MCAD pointed out: \u201cAn employer does not have the right, however, to terminate an employee with a known disability by transferring them to a different job with new duties without any consideration of reasonable accommodation.\u201d<\/p>\n<h1><span style=\"color: #03416b;\">Cases to Watch in 2021<\/span><\/h1>\n<ol start=\"5\">\n<li>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The Scope of The Ministerial Exception<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><em>Boyd v. Gordon College<\/em>, 2020-P-0614 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>At issue in this case, currently before the SJC, is the scope of the ministerial exception and whether it applies to all employees of religious institutions or only a subset. Professor DeWeese-Boyd is a social work professor at Gordon College (an evangelical Christian liberal arts college), and was denied a promotion to full professor after her vocal advocacy on behalf of LGBTQ+ individuals and against the college\u2019s anti-LGBTQ+ policies. She asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under Massachusetts law. The College argues that it is protected from application of the state law because it is a religious institution and Professor DeWeese-Boyd is a ministerial employee. This argument relies on the ministerial exception under the First Amendment, which shields religious institutions from liability for employment discrimination against their employees who are \u201cministers.\u201d Whether Gordon College is a protected institution and whether a social work professor is a \u201cminister\u201d are issues to be decided by the SJC.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"6\">\n<li>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Discriminatory Remarks \u2013 When They Become Actionable<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><em>Robert Collier v. Dallas County Hosp. Dist. d\/b\/a Parkland Hlth &amp; Hosp. Sys.<\/em>, 19-10761 (U.S. Supreme Court)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Under Massachusetts law, a single, isolated comment may be actionable as creating a hostile work environment. The issue is not numerosity but, rather, whether the discriminatory comment had such a humiliating, stigmatizing, and intimidating effect on the employee that it interfered with the employee\u2019s ability to fully participate in the workplace. It is clear that some words are so offensive that a single utterance may give rise to violations of the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute.<\/p>\n<p>The standard under Title VII is less clear. At issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in <em>Robert Collier v. Dallas County Hosp.<\/em>, is whether an employee\u2019s exposure to the N-word in the workplace is severe enough to send his Title VII hostile work environment claim to a jury, and whether and in what circumstances racial epithets in the workplace are \u201cextremely serious\u201d incidents sufficient to create a hostile work environment under Title VII, rather than nonactionable \u201cmere utterances.\u201d<\/p>\n<ol start=\"7\">\n<li>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Unfair and Deceptive Practices \u2013 M.G.L. c. 93A in the Employment Context<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><em>Governo Law Firm v. Kendra Bergeron, et al.<\/em>, SJC-12948 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Massachusetts has strong statutory protection against unfair and deceptive business practices, <em>see <\/em>M.G.L. c. 93A (\u201cChapter 93A\u201d), which provides for both multiple damages and attorney\u2019s fees awards. However, it has long been understood that Chapter 93A protections and remedies do not extend to the employee-employer relationship. A case currently before the SJC is seeking to revisit that understanding.<\/p>\n<p>The case involves a Chapter 93A claim brought by a law firm against its former employees, attorneys who allegedly took electronic data from the firm while employed there. The case raises the issue of whether an employer may assert a viable Chapter 93A claim against an employee who engaged in unfair business practices (a) while acting outside the scope of employment, and (b) in direct competition with the employer.<\/p>\n<p>To stay up to speed on the latest decisions and developments in Employment Law, subscribe to our <a href=\"https:\/\/visitor.r20.constantcontact.com\/manage\/optin?v=0010zWKWzyCOgElnYQ9FtHI-eDPgFx0El3NDIGbmYOawaKAg6OAWRtNZ1YBbX303wN-hO88qKmcS0fkTj2MvthLTWPcXeJNXuTRwl1vreRLVGw%3D\">Employment Blog<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As we turn the page on 2020, we offer a brief look back at several significant employment decisions over the past year. At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020), recognizing that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected by Title VII. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":201,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.8 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases - Employment<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases - Employment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"As we turn the page on 2020, we offer a brief look back at several significant employment decisions over the past year. At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020), recognizing that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected by Title VII. [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Employment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-02-19T19:43:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-08T18:40:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2018\/08\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"5030\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"5030\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sherin and Lodgen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sherin and Lodgen\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sherin and Lodgen\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96bd34e7823afde2e3e7e561023c5a44\"},\"headline\":\"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-19T19:43:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-08T18:40:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1913,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/4\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/\",\"name\":\"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases - Employment\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/4\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-19T19:43:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-08T18:40:25+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96bd34e7823afde2e3e7e561023c5a44\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/4\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/4\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg\",\"width\":5030,\"height\":5030,\"caption\":\"A blue circle with binoculars on a black background.\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/19\\\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Employment\",\"description\":\"Employment Law News from Sherin and Lodgen\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96bd34e7823afde2e3e7e561023c5a44\",\"name\":\"Sherin and Lodgen\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d98a5f87b44b7c14488b62c802e175aba108d19bda0d855a9f1cc4924948f5fa?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d98a5f87b44b7c14488b62c802e175aba108d19bda0d855a9f1cc4924948f5fa?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d98a5f87b44b7c14488b62c802e175aba108d19bda0d855a9f1cc4924948f5fa?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sherin and Lodgen\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.sherin.com\\\/employment-blog\\\/author\\\/sherinlodgen\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases - Employment","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases - Employment","og_description":"As we turn the page on 2020, we offer a brief look back at several significant employment decisions over the past year. At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020), recognizing that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected by Title VII. [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/","og_site_name":"Employment","article_published_time":"2021-02-19T19:43:50+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-08T18:40:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":5030,"height":5030,"url":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2018\/08\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sherin and Lodgen","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sherin and Lodgen","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/"},"author":{"name":"Sherin and Lodgen","@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/96bd34e7823afde2e3e7e561023c5a44"},"headline":"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases","datePublished":"2021-02-19T19:43:50+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-08T18:40:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/"},"wordCount":1913,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2018\/08\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg","inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/","url":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/","name":"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases - Employment","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2018\/08\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg","datePublished":"2021-02-19T19:43:50+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-08T18:40:25+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/96bd34e7823afde2e3e7e561023c5a44"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2018\/08\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2018\/08\/40092597_l-1-1.jpg","width":5030,"height":5030,"caption":"A blue circle with binoculars on a black background."},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/2021\/02\/19\/our-top-five-to-ten-list-of-important-recent-and-upcoming-cases\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Our \u201cTop Five to Ten\u201d List of Important Recent and Upcoming Cases"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/","name":"Employment","description":"Employment Law News from Sherin and Lodgen","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/96bd34e7823afde2e3e7e561023c5a44","name":"Sherin and Lodgen","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d98a5f87b44b7c14488b62c802e175aba108d19bda0d855a9f1cc4924948f5fa?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d98a5f87b44b7c14488b62c802e175aba108d19bda0d855a9f1cc4924948f5fa?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d98a5f87b44b7c14488b62c802e175aba108d19bda0d855a9f1cc4924948f5fa?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sherin and Lodgen"},"url":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/author\/sherinlodgen\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/employment-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}