Ablin Law PC

10/08/2026

Does it matter who conducts your workplace investigation — internal counsel or an outside firm?

It might matter more than you think. Even when in-house counsel is fully capable of being fair and thorough, there's often a perception gap: employees tend to feel more comfortable speaking candidly to an independent outside investigator than to internal Legal Department staff.

Add in potential privilege issues, witness conflicts, and the ABA's guidance on maintaining investigator independence, and the decision becomes a lot more nuanced than it first appears.

So — does your organization have a clear protocol for deciding when to bring in outside counsel for workplace investigations?

I break down the key factors in this blog post.

https://ablinlaw.com/articles/2016/10/26/retaining-employee-confidence-by-using-outside-counsel-to-investigate/

Retaining Employee Confidence by Using Outside Counsel to Investigate Oct 26, 2016 Companies faced with allegations of workplace misconduct have choices when it comes to investigating those allegations. Some firms opt to use internal legal department personnel in coordination with the Human Resource...

10/07/2026

If your organization is conducting layoffs or offering severance packages, there's a federal law most HR teams underestimate — and getting it wrong can void your entire agreement.

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act requires employers to follow a strict timeline to get a valid release of any age discrimination claims — and its rules apply not just to involuntary terminations and reductions-in-force, but equally to early retirement plans, exit incentive plans, and other voluntary departures where an employee is asked to sign a release.

The minimum requirements are specific and non-negotiable. For any employee age 40 or older, the severance agreement must be written in plain language, advise the employee to consult an attorney before signing, give them at least 21 days to consider the agreement — or 45 days in a group layoff — and allow 7 days to revoke after signing.

And when two or more employees over 40 are affected simultaneously, the obligations go even further. The employer must provide detailed information to each affected employee identifying the job titles and ages of all individuals in the decisional unit — both those selected and those not selected for termination.

If an employer fails to meet any of the OWBPA requirements, the waiver of ADEA rights may be void — meaning the employee may still be able to file an age discrimination claim with the EEOC even after signing the agreement.

Before your next layoff or RIF, make sure your severance agreements have been reviewed by an employment attorney. A defective agreement doesn't just fail to protect you — it can make things significantly worse. Let's connect.

https://www.troutman.com/insights/severance-agreements-for-employees-over-40-understanding-the-older-workers-benefit-protection-act/

10/06/2026

When a workplace complaint lands on your desk, do you know exactly what to do in the first hour?

So many investigations go sideways not because of bad intentions, but because of missed steps early on—confidentiality breaches, unclear communication with the subject employee, or choosing the wrong person to lead the inquiry.

I break down the six steps that protect the integrity of your investigation (and your organization) from the very start, including why your choice of investigator matters more than you might think.

What's the trickiest part of launching an investigation in your experience? I'd love to hear your take in the comments.

Full guidance in the link below.

https://ablinlaw.com/articles/2016/11/23/investigation-pitfalls-tips-and-tricks/

Investigation Pitfalls: Tips and Tricks Nov 23, 2016 When you've identified a potential issue in the workplace that needs to be investigated, what you do, or don't do, right from the start can have significant repercussions later. Here are six important steps and guidance to help you launch and han...

10/05/2026

An employee posts something offensive, controversial, or damaging on social media. Your instinct is to act fast — but moving too quickly without the right framework could expose your organization to serious legal liability.

Many employers don't realize that disciplining an employee for a social media post isn't as straightforward as it seems. Private companies are generally free to discipline or terminate employees for speech that violates company policy, harms the business's reputation, or disrupts the workplace — but several laws create significant exceptions that employers must navigate carefully.

One of the biggest landmines? Employee social media activity concerning wages, benefits, or working conditions may constitute "protected concerted activity" under the National Labor Relations Act, and disciplinary action for such activity may be unlawful.

Equally important is how you enforce your policies. Employers must act consistently — applying policies uniformly to avoid discrimination claims. And before reacting to any post, managers need to understand the legal limits, investigate context, and document everything.

The bottom line: a well-crafted, consistently enforced social media policy is one of the most important tools in your Code of Conduct — and one of the most commonly overlooked.

https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/7-questions-to-consider-before-disciplining-employees-for-social-media-posts/

Employers may be concerned about employee social media activity, even if it is done outside of work and focused on personal messages. Posts with controversial or inflammatory messages are often seen by coworkers, customers, and business partners and can draw unwanted attention to employers, particul...

10/02/2026

Employers are still losing million-dollar jury verdicts over one of the most basic requirements in employment law — the ADA's interactive accommodation process. And it's happening more than you might think.

As 2025 drew to a close, employers continued to lose jury trials and face million-dollar verdicts because they ignored the basics of the interactive process requirements under the ADA. Most often, the fact patterns involve an employee who is underperforming or struggling, and frustrated employers rush to terminate without following a systematic approach or documenting the process.

Here is where many managers go wrong: if an employee says "I'm struggling," that may not look like an ADA-triggering comment—but courts suggest it is the employer's burden to ask why the employee is struggling. Failure to have that dialogue can be very costly and expose the employer to a lawsuit.

And the legal standard is broader than most employers realize. The ADA does not require an employee to show that an accommodation is necessary — only that it is reasonable. The statutory language protects employees who can perform their jobs "with or without" accommodation and obligates employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

The solution isn't complicated — but it does require a structured process, properly trained managers, and clear documentation at every step. If your organization hasn't revisited its ADA accommodation procedures recently, this is your reminder.

https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2026/01/the-ada-accommodation-gap-why-employers-struggle-and-how-a-better-process-can-help/

View our The ADA Accommodation Gap: Why Employers Struggle and How a Better Process Can Help insight.

10/01/2026

What happens to your internal investigation when law enforcement is already involved?

Many companies make the mistake of stepping back — assuming the authorities have it covered. But your obligations don't pause just because federal or state investigators are on the scene.

From Upjohn Warnings to confidentiality protections to maintaining an independent, objective investigation team, there's a lot your company still needs to get right.

I break it all down in this blog post — including when companies are legally required to report misconduct in the first place.

https://ablinlaw.com/articles/2016/12/21/conducting-internal-investigations-when-law-enforcement-is-involved/

When law enforcement is involved in workplace misconduct claims, employers still need a prompt, fair internal investigation. Learn the key legal considerations.

09/30/2026

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is now in full enforcement mode — and the EEOC's recent cases send a clear message to employers who aren't paying attention.

The EEOC received 2,729 charges of discrimination alleging violations of the PWFA in fiscal year 2024 alone, and enforcement actions have focused on some of the most basic failures: refusing to let pregnant employees sit, take short breaks, or modify their hours, and immediately placing workers on unpaid leave instead of engaging in the interactive accommodation process.

Real-world settlements show what's at stake. One employer paid $100,000 after terminating a pregnant worker who requested time off to recover from a stillbirth. Another paid $35,000 after firing an employee on the very same day she requested pregnancy accommodations.

What makes the PWFA different from prior law? PWFA protections extend to conditions that may not qualify as disabilities under the ADA — and many common-sense adjustments, such as allowing more frequent restroom breaks or preferential parking, should be provided without requiring medical documentation.

Pregnancy accommodation is no longer just a matter of good HR practice — it's a legal obligation with real financial consequences. If your policies, training programs, and accommodation procedures haven't been updated to reflect the PWFA, now is the time.

https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/where-the-pwfa-stands-today-key-legal-lessons-for-employers/

March is Women’s History Month, lending itself to a review of the lessons learned over the last three years since enactment of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). While the guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides some insight, employers regularly face a...

09/29/2026

Is your investigation process accidentally creating retaliation risk?

Most employers focus on gathering facts — but the how matters just as much as the what when it comes to protecting witnesses and avoiding legal exposure.

From interview order to investigator demeanor to pausing performance reviews, the structural choices you make during an investigation can either protect your company or create significant liability.

In this blog post, I walk through the key steps employers should take to prevent witness intimidation and retaliation claims — before, during, and after interviews.

https://ablinlaw.com/articles/2017/01/26/preempting-witness-intimidation-or-retaliation/

Preempting Witness Intimidation or Retaliation Jan 26, 2017 When employers receive claims of workplace misconduct, it's critical to conduct investigations that are full, fair and thorough, and to take remedial measures as appropriate at the conclusion of the investigation. However, it's equally impo...

09/28/2026

Age discrimination at work isn't declining — and the data in 2026 makes that impossible to ignore.

About two-thirds of workers age 50 and older — 64% — report having seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace, a proportion that has not changed since 2024. And 22% say they feel like they are being pushed out of their job because of their age.

The bias often shows up in subtle but legally significant ways. AARP's new survey finds that workers frequently experience age discrimination, including being assumed to be less tech-savvy, not being acknowledged for accomplishments or expertise, being made fun of for different generations, and being given preference to younger employees for training opportunities.

And the legal consequences for employers are rising. In 2024, the EEOC received 16,223 charges of age discrimination — an increase from 14,144 charges in 2023 and 11,500 in 2022 — a trend that shows no signs of slowing.

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, these behaviors aren't just bad management — they can be illegal. Whether it's a layoff that disproportionately impacts workers over 40, a promotion passed over, or a training opportunity denied, employers face real legal liability. Now is the time to audit your policies, review your training programs, and make sure your managers know where the legal lines are.

https://www.aarp.org/work/age-discrimination/age-bias-survey-2026/

A new AARP survey finds persistent age discrimination

09/25/2026

Religious accommodation requests are on the rise — and the rules changed significantly with the Supreme Court's Groff v. DeJoy decision. Is your organization keeping up?

Before Groff, employers could reject a religious accommodation request if it caused more than a "de minimis" cost — a relatively easy standard to meet. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected that test. Now, employers must demonstrate that a requested accommodation would impose substantial increased costs in relation to their particular business.

Here's what many employers are still getting wrong: the ruling does not permit blanket denials without individualized review — each request must still be considered on its own merits through a genuine interactive process, and employers may not rely on broad assumptions about inconvenience or hypothetical burdens.

Common accommodation requests include flexible scheduling for religious observances, exceptions to dress and grooming requirements, and time off for religious holidays. Failure to accommodate can result in discrimination liability, while poorly handled accommodations may conflict with other employees' rights — making clear policies and manager training essential for navigating this balance.

If your managers don't know how to respond when an employee requests a religious accommodation, that's a gap your organization can't afford.

https://www.airdowerwas.com/blog/2025/december/what-employers-should-know-about-the-evolving-la/

Under Title VII, employers must provide a “reasonable accommodate” sincerely held religious beliefs, unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship” on the conduct of their business.