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.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Employer Rules
- Wage & Hour
- Labor Law
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Worker Classification
- Department of Labor
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Artificial Intelligence
- Coronavirus
- NLRB
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Title VII
- OSHA
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Compliance
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- Harassment
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- Supreme Court
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Workplace Accommodations
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Overtime Pay
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Whistleblower
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- 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
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- No Free Delivery: Misclassification Comes at a Price
- One Tweet Away From Trouble: Social Media at Work
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA