This weekend Cam Newton, the quarterback for Auburn University, won the Heisman Trophy. For those of you who do not follow college football, the Heisman is an award given to the most outstanding player in collegiate football each year. If you do follow college football, you are probably aware that this year’s award carries with it a scandal based on claims that Newton's father tried to get another college to pay $180,000 for his son to play for them. Although it has suggested that its investigation is on-going, the NCAA so far has found no evidence that Cam Newton or Auburn knew about his father’s scheme. Cam Newton has denied any wrongdoing, although he does have a past history of brushes with the law. Not surprisingly, this situation generated a lot of discussion about whether Cam Newton is worthy of the award.
I won’t weigh in on that question but this situation does remind me of a scenario that I’ve encountered many times in defending companies against discrimination lawsuits. An employee is either disciplined for some form of inappropriate conduct or is investigated but the evidence does not support discipline. A short time later, the same employee receives an award or promotion. In any litigation that arises from the employee’s (alleged) conduct, a central piece of the plaintiff’s case is going to be that she complained about the employee and instead of taking action, the company rewarded the employee; in the alternative scenario, the company disciplined the employee but shortly after rewarded him, making the discipline meaningless.
I do not mean to suggest that employees who are merely accused of wrongdoing should not be eligible to promotion or awards. Nor do I suggest that an across the board ban on awards or promotion for employees who have received discipline is the best approach, although I have worked with clients who have such rules. Rather, my point is that employers should be aware of how their actions will appear to outsiders (e.g. jurors) and be prepared to answer the accusations of individuals who may find the award or promotion to be offensive given the circumstances.
- Partner
Mark Chumley has experience representing clients in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has handled numerous cases before state and federal courts and state and federal civil rights agencies, including claims involving ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Coronavirus
- Labor Law
- FMLA
- NLRB
- Religion Discrimination
- Employment Litigation
- National Labor Relations Board
- Workplace Accommodations
- Workplace Violence
- Whistleblower
- Department of Labor
- Arbitration
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Discrimination
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Trade Commission
- IRS
- Disability Discrimination
- Litigation
- Employer Policies
- Social Media
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Retirement
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- ERISA
- Employer Handbook
- Wage & Hour
- Reasonable Accommodation
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Title VII
- Unions
- Employer Rules
- NLRA
- Sexual Harassment
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Technology
- Privacy
- Transgender Issues
- 401(k)
- Disability
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- SECURE Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Overtime Pay
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: New Laws Protecting Pregnant and Nursing Workers
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: What is a Whistleblower and Why Should You Care?
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: FMLA Traps for Employers
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Artificial Intelligence and Employment Law
- U. S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Workplace Religious Accommodations
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Non-Compete Agreements Under Attack
- New NLRB General Counsel Guidance Threatens Ability to Enforce Non-Compete Agreements
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Exploding 5 Employment Law Myths
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Economics of Employment Law
- NLRB Issues Guidance on the Recent Mclauren Macomb Decision