What's Changed and What to do: Practical Lessons and Takeaways from Recent Court Decisions

Employment and litigation attorneys Jim Hammerschmidt, Matt Tranter, and Mason Navarrete discussed practical employment law matters. The panel focused on recent federal cases from the DMV to illustrate best practices for employers to avoid litigation.

1. 1 What’s Changed – And What To Do Practical Lessons and Takeaways from Recent Court Decisions Jim Hammerschmidt, Matthew Tranter, and Mason Navarrete Employment and Litigation Attorneys Lerch, Early & Brewer

2. 2 Hollis v. Morgan State (4th Cir., Aug. 27, 2025) Former professor sued Morgan State under Title VII, Title IX, 42 USC § 1983, and Maryland state law. She alleged that the University denied her promotions because of her sex, paid her less than male colleagues, and retaliated against her when she complained of this discrimination. Over the course of six years, Plaintiff was denied multiple promotions and at one point was demoted to an at-will employee. Plaintiff’s department chair had also made multiple derogatory remarks about Plaintiff’s sexual orientation to another graduate student. Plaintiff was actually voted to receive tenure by the department committee two different times, but her department chair recommended promotion both times, which the President adopted. She became a tenured Professor once the EEOC decided there was reasonable cause to believe Plaintiff was subject to discrimination, unlawful pay, and retaliation. Trial court granted Morgan State summary judgment on all claims. The 4th Circuit partially reversed, reviving many of the plaintiff’s claims.

3. 3 Hollis v. Morgan State (4th Cir., Aug. 27, 2025) What’s Changed – And What To Do Despite the fact that the supervisor (who allegedly made disparaging comments years earlier) was not the ultimate decision maker, the court still concluded that she made the recommendations to the dean, which the dean followed. The Court also found jury could conclude non-discriminatory reasons for treatment could be pretext and/or showing discriminatory intent. For instance, Plaintiff’s publication of five of her seven articles in pay-to-publish journals, or journals she was on board of, were cited as reason for non-promotion. But the court cast those aside as another professor, who likewise only published two articles in regular journals, was a valid comparator and was promoted. Employer also offered varying rationales for treatment and did not follow usual procedures in dealing with Plaintiff—deviations themselves could be circumstantial evidence from which pretext and discriminatory intent could be inferred. Key Take-Aways: Deviations from usual treatment can sufficiently substantiate a claim to preclude a defense summary judgment, as can varied and shifting rationales for the employment action.

4. 4 Herkert v. Bisigano (4th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025) Social Security Administration reassigned Plaintiff from a supervisory role to a non-supervisory role after she requested additional telework as a “reasonable accommodation,” which her employer had initially allowed, but began to deny. Employer alleged Plaintiff’s performance had declined. Plaintiff had made the request due to her medical conditions, and was reassigned to a “less desirable” position shortly after she expressed her intent to pursue potential EEO remedies. Employer alleged it was performance-related. There was no change in pay grade or benefits, but Plaintiff complained the position was less prestigious, less interesting, and provided less room for advancement. SSA contended it was a lateral move. SSA then offered Plaintiff a different non-supervisory position to remove her from her alleged hostile work environment. Plaintiff took the job, contending it was Hobson’s Choice. The SSA said she accepted it “voluntarily.” Plaintiff sued under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, alleging her reassignment was discriminatory and retaliatory and was without reasonable accommodation.

5. 5 Herkert v. Bisigano (4th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025) What’s Changed – And What To Do The district court granted summary judgment to the SSA, finding Herkert’s reassignment was not “significantly” adverse change in Plaintiff’s employment status and was voluntary. There must be some “significant detrimental effect” on the employee’s status, like a decrease in the employee’s salary, benefits or rank. This is now the old standard . District court also decided that there was no adverse action where an employee voluntarily requests a transfer and the employer agrees to it. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that under the new standard from  Muldrow v. City of St. Louis ( S.Ct . 2024), a plaintiff need only show “some disadvantage” or “some harm” —not “significant,” “serious,” or “substantial”—to establish an adverse employment action in the terms and conditions of employment. The appellate court also found factual disputes about whether the reassignment was truly voluntary and whether it constituted a reasonable accommodation.

6. 6 Herkert v. Bisigano (4th Cir., Aug. 14, 2025) What’s Changed – And What To Do Key Take-Aways: There is now a very significant shift in how the courts evaluate discrimination claims, wiping away decades of law that we were all familiar with. The new, post- Muldrow  standard of “some harm” significantly lowers the hurdle for what counts as an adverse employment action in discrimination claims. Underscores the importance of fair employment practices and implementing proactive measures to comply with the law. Employers need to be vigilant in understanding that actions previously deemed inconsequential may now have legal consequences under Title VII and other state and local fair employment practice laws. Putting an employee on a PIP Removing supervisory duties or any other material or important job duties or responsibilities Imposing harsh or other disadvantageous scheduling changes Downgrading job duties or work conditions Withdrawing job perks Regis v. Noem , U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia – June 2025 is illustrative of the new playing field. Highlights that a “voluntary” reassignment may not be meaningful if it’s between two undesirable options. Employers should be more cautious when reassigning employees to a new position as a purported accommodation.

7. 7 Hammoud v. Jimmy’s Seafood, Inc. (D. Md., May 29, 2024) Plaintiff, a female, Muslim bartender/server alleged that her and her sister were subjected to religious and sex-based harassment by a Muslim co-worker, and she was retaliated against after making complaints to management. The co-worker constantly berated, yelled at, and sneered at Plaintiff for serving alcohol, drinking alcohol, flirting with men, dressing inappropriately, and other behavior he considered inconsistent with how Muslim women should act. Plaintiff verbally complained, implicitly and explicitly, to managers and assistant managers over many months. Employee was suspended without reinstatement after making complaints to management. Employee sued under Title VII and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, alleging a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.

8. 8 Hammoud v. Jimmy’s Seafood, Inc. (D. Md., May 29, 2024) What’s Changed – And What To Do Employer claimed it was not liable for the co-worker’s actions because the bad actor was not Plaintiff’s supervisor Employers are vicariously liable for the actions of a supervisor in situations where: There is quid pro quo hostile work environment; or Where the supervisor has authority over the employer Employers are also liable for a supervisor or co-worker who creates a hostile work environment where the employer “knew or should have known about co-worker harassment and “failed to take prompt and effective action to stop it” “An employer cannot avoid Title VII liability for co-worker harassment by adopting a ‘see no evil, hear no evil strategy” The court found that: The employer failed to identify any reasonable procedures it had in place for Plaintiff to seek corrective action for the harassment The employer did not have any harassment policy or complaint procedures The employer’s existing employer policy that addressed only general workplace issues and instructed employees to first try to resolve it with the immediate supervisor The policy failed to place any duty on supervisors to report incidents of harassment to their superiors The court also found that the manager to whom Plaintiff complained did nothing to correct the behavior or prevent it from continuing.

9. 9 Hammoud v. Jimmy’s Seafood, Inc. (D. Md., May 29, 2024) Key Take-Aways: Have robust harassment, discrimination, retaliation, accommodation, and EEO policies. Provide clear avenues in the policies for employees to complain. Identify individuals by name, department, and/or title Provide email and phone numbers Have a hotline Provide clear instructions for supervisors that they have duties and obligations to either address or report complaints to higher authorities. A policy must require supervisors to escalate unresolved complaints to higher authority to be adequate. Train managers on how to deal with complaints within the organization. Act on verbal complaints as well as written complaints. Promptly investigate complaints or harassment, discrimination or failure to accommodate. Take prompt and effective corrective action to address complaints.

10. 10 Jackson v. Collins (D.D.C., Aug. 19, 2025) Plaintiff complained of disconcerting behavior by a coworker, who was romantically interested in Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that she complained to her supervisor after the coworker sexually harassed her. The Supervisor responded by directing the coworker to have no contact with Plaintiff, initiated “immediate fact finding,” and elevated concerns to his own superiors. The Coworker continued to approach Plaintiff, and Plaintiff complained of the slow pace of the investigation. Ultimately, the investigation concluded that the harassment allegations were not sustained as Plaintiff never verbalized to her coworker that the comments were unwelcome and unwanted. Employer also instructed the coworker not to have contact with Plaintiff and had the coworker complete sexual harassment training. Plaintiff sued under Title VII, alleging hostile work environment.

11. 11 Jackson v. Collins (D.D.C., Aug. 19, 2025) What’s Changed – And What To Do Trial court granted employer summary judgment: it found no facts to indicate a sufficiently abusive work environment; and no facts to indicate that employer was responsible for any abusive work environment, even if one existed. Court found disconcerting behavior insufficient to be hostile work environment, as coworker’s conduct—singing her name and sitting in his car before his shift—was more “creepy and odd.” Nor was employer responsible for the environment, as the employer implemented prompt and appropriate corrective action: no contact orders; raising issue up the flagpole; starting an investigation (even if it did not start for a month after the complaint because of trouble finding an appropriate investigator); training for coworker; and shift changes to reduce further contact. Key Takeaways : Prompt responses to hostile workplace claims, even if stymied by actions outside of the employer’s control, can warrant defense judgment if the matter later results in litigation.

12. 12 SAMIRAH v. DISTRICT SMILES (D. Md., Apr. 4, 2025) Muslim Arab male dentist alleged he experienced discrimination based on his race, religion, and gender. Called the “N word” by his co-worker Discriminated against for having a long beard Called a “terrorist” by a co-worker One month after complaining about these issues, Plaintiff was fired. This gave rise to a retaliation claim. Employer presented evidence that prior to Plaintiff’s termination, he violated his employment contract and engaged in other misconduct. Failed to notify the employer that he was running for state office and conducted campaign-related work in the office Was tardy for patient appointments Failed to take intra-oral photos of patients on every patient as required and after numerous notices and conversations about it Slept in the office when he didn’t have patients, including falling asleep in the waiting room Employer fired Plaintiff after he locked himself in a patient room and began copying patient information from the computer with a patient in the chair.

13. 13 Samirah v. District Smiles (D. Md., Apr. 4, 2025) What’s Changed – And What To Do Key Take-Aways: Retaliation claims can be very difficult to litigate where the employee complaint and the adverse employment action are in close proximity to one another. However, an employer does not need to accept poor performance or put up with misconduct for fear it will be liable for retaliation. DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT!!!! Document all performance counseling, including verbal warnings and coaching – memos to file, emails, forms, etc. Be sure the documentation is factual, fair, objective, complete and consistent Ask the employee to sign acknowledging receipt of written warnings or counselings , but note that the employee does not have to agree with the documentation Create the documentation ASAP and date all documents Be specific about how the employee violated policies, procedures, or requirements or failed to meet expectations Avoid vague statements, such as “you have a bad attitude” Explain clearly in writing the consequences if the employee fails to improve performance or correct behavior Follow up if the employee is not improving or correcting behavior

14. 14 Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (Sup. Ct., June 5, 2025) Heterosexual white woman sued under Title VII. She alleged that her employer discriminated against her when it (1) hired a lesbian woman for a new management position instead of plaintiff; and (2) demoted plaintiff and gave her former position to a gay man. The company had initially interviewed Plaintiff for the position, but removed her from her current role and demoted her to a secretarial role a few days after her interview for the management position. The issue was whether majority group Plaintiffs have a heightened evidentiary burden in discrimination cases compared to minority group plaintiffs. The District Court had granted summary judgment to the agency finding that Plaintiff had not shown that the agency was a “rare employer” who discriminates against members of a majority group. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that as a straight woman, she was required to make a showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.”

15. 15 Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (Sup. Ct., June 5, 2025) What’s Changed – And What To Do United States Supreme Court overturned the lower courts, holding that majority group plaintiffs have the same evidentiary standard as minority group plaintiffs. Key Take-Away: This ruling may result in an uptick of discrimination lawsuits by majority group members. Employers should ensure that all employees are equally treated in employment decisions. A concurring opinion aligns with the current administration’s putting DEI programs in the regulatory microscope. Employers should be measured in this area.   

16. 16 Winsett v. H&S Resources (D. Md., Jan. 21, 2025) Female employee claimed failure-to-promote discrimination when a position she applied for was given to a male. She sued under Title VII and the Maryland law. Plaintiff was allegedly told she had until the close of business on a particular day, and she submitted her application before the deadline expired. Employer made a verbal offer to another candidate (male) the day before and a formal offer less than an hour before the Plaintiff submitted her application. Employer first claimed that Plaintiff was not selected because she did not timely apply for the position, and then later claimed Plaintiff was not selected because she did not have the necessary experience for the position because she lacked a project management certification, and then the employer claimed the male was better qualified.

17. 17 Winsett v. H&S Resources (D. Md., Jan. 21, 2025) The court refused summary judgment for the employer due to shifting explanations and lack of documentation to support its defense. The process for considering applications and ultimately filling the position was not well-established The employer did not have a position announcement The employer lacked a clear set of qualifications for the position The employer did not have applications for all the candidates The employer did not have the offer letter for the position There was no documentation or notice about whether the position could be filled prior to the end of the application period The court concluded that the employer “has provided, at best, only weak evidence of its non-discriminatory reason, falling very close to no evidence at all.”

18. 18 Winsett v. H&S Resources (D. Md., Jan. 21, 2025) What’s Changed – And What To Do Key Take-Aways: Review your hiring and promotion processes. Define hiring and promotion criteria – create and communicate clear written guidelines for hiring and promotions based on performance, skills, and alignment with organizational goals. Standardize evaluations and the interview process – use structured interviews and consistent metrics to ensure and reduce bias in the evaluation process. Maintain factual and objective records about why a particular candidate was chosen over others. Ensure an open and fair process, including avoiding pre-selecting candidates for the job. Maintain documentation regarding the process.

19. 19 Thank You!

20. 20 About the Presenter Jim Hammerschmidt’s practice includes a range of commercial, corporate, and employment counseling and litigation in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Jim R. Hammerschmidt T 301-841-0189 [email protected] Employment Attorney Lerch, Early & Brewer What’s Changed – And What To Do

21. 21 About the Presenter Matthew Tranter is a litigator who serves Maryland clients on a wide-range of commercial and related matters. Matthew H. Tranter T 301-347-1260 [email protected] Litigation Attorney Lerch, Early & Brewer What’s Changed – And What To Do

22. 22 About the Presenter Mason Navarrete is a  litigation attorney  who helps clients resolve disputes in Maryland. Mason Z. Navarrete T 301-657-0186 [email protected] Litigation Attorney Lerch, Early & Brewer What’s Changed – And What To Do