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
- FMLA
- EEOC
- Labor Law
- Immigration
- Department of Labor
- Wage & Hour
- NLRB
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Discrimination
- Coronavirus
- FLSA
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Social Media
- Sexual Harassment
- Sixth Circuit
- Employer Policies
- Title VII
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Transgender Issues
- National Enforcement Plan
- Employer Rules
- Workplace Violence
- Holiday Policies
- Overtime Pay
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Artificial Intelligence
- Privacy
- Department of Justice
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- NLRA
- Compliance
- Paid Leave Laws
- Supreme Court
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Tax Credit
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Litigation
- IRS
- Worker Classification
- Harassment
- Disability Discrimination
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Medical Marijuana
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Disability
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- 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
- US Court of Appeals puts $100,000 H-1B Fee on Hold Again
- Asking Is Protected: Sixth Circuit Expands FMLA Retaliation Protections
- New DHS Rule Will Restrict Student Periods of Admission from Duration of Status to Fixed End Date
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know
- Arbitration Agreements Take a Hit: What the Sixth Circuit's EFAA Decision Means for Your Workplace Agreements
- Bourbon, Ballots, and Bargaining Orders: Sixth Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Cemex Framework