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
- EEOC
- Immigration
- Affirmative Action
- Compliance
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Labor Law
- FMLA
- Wage & Hour
- NLRB
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Coronavirus
- Diversity
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- FLSA
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Policies
- Title VII
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Transgender Issues
- Employer Rules
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Overtime Pay
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- National Enforcement Plan
- OSHA
- Privacy
- Artificial Intelligence
- Holiday Policies
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Workplace Accommodations
- Supreme Court
- Federal Trade Commission
- Paid Leave Laws
- Litigation
- Tax Credit
- IRS
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Worker Classification
- Harassment
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Medical Marijuana
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Accommodation
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- 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
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- 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)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- 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
- Authorization Without Documentation: Employers Left with I-9 Compliance Questions Following TPS Expirations for El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine
- EEOC Moves to Rescind 2012 Criminal Background Check Guidance
- EEOC Proposes Overhaul of Federal Workplace Discrimination Complaint Process
- OFCCP Publishes Final Rules Reducing Federal Contractor Affirmative Action Obligations
- 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