"Closing your laptop at 5 p.m. Doing only your assigned tasks. Spending more time with family. These are just some of the common examples used to define the latest workplace trend of 'quiet quitting.'

Some experts say it's a misnomer and should really be defined as carving out time to take care of yourself. . . . Quiet quitting doesn't actually involve quitting. Instead, it has been deemed a response to hustle culture and burnout; employees are 'quitting' going above and beyond and declining to do tasks they are not being paid for." Click here to read the NPR article.

"There has never been a better time for employers to train managers on the basics of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights and appropriate responses to FMLA requests. Believe it or not, FMLA rights can be violated even if no FMLA leave is denied. That’s the law as affirmed by the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Ziccarelli v. Thomas J. Dart, et al. In that case, the plaintiff had worked in the Cook County Sheriff’s Office for 27 years, during which he periodically took FMLA leave. The plaintiff wanted to take more time off. A conversation with the office’s FMLA manager discouraged him from doing so, he claimed, and forced him to retire. The plaintiff filed suit, arguing, among other things, a violation of the FMLA’s anti-interference provision. . . . The Court of Appeals concluded there was sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on the FMLA interference claim. The Court emphasized that 'an employer can violate the FMLA by discouraging an employee from exercising rights under the FMLA without denying an FMLA leave request.' In other words, mere discouragement can constitute unlawful FMLA interference. Another court considered a supervisor’s body language (he was 'visibly perturbed') in denying summary judgment on an FMLA claim. Now more than ever, training managers on appropriate responses to FMLA leave requests is essential to prevent interference claims." Click here to read the Akerman article.

"The nation’s federal health authorities marked the next chapter of the pandemic yesterday by significantly loosening many COVID-19 recommendations – including dropping the 'six-foot' social distancing rule – thereby lightening employers’ burden to manage the virus. While the CDC’s August 11 announcement of revised guidelines comes as a welcome step in the years-long battle against the novel coronavirus, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s time to drop your guard and pretend that COVID-19 is gone completely. Here are the 10 top questions you should be asking now, along with practical answers to help you navigate this next phase." Click here to read the Fisher Phillips article.

"The Seventh Circuit recently clarified an important distinction between offers of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and non-Rule 68 offers of settlement, and explained the role rejection of such offers plays in reducing statutory attorney fee awards. . . .

The defendant in Cooper v. Retrieval‐Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., shortly after filing its answer, made an oral offer to settle the matter for $500 in damages plus reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred up to that point. The plaintiff rejected this offer, and the case proceeded. The district court eventually granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability, and a jury later awarded him a total of $500 in damages. The plaintiff then sought $65,357.90 in attorney fees, which the district court largely denied, awarding only $6,845.76, or about one tenth of the fees sought. In cutting down the fee award, the district court noted that the plaintiff was only eligible to receive attorney fees incurred up to the rejection of the defendant’s early settlement offer, as if the defendant had made a Rule 68 offer. . . .

The Seventh Circuit . . . held that Rule 68 was not applicable to the offer made by the defendant, and the district court was not permitted to apply Rule 68’s automatic and mandatory bar in denying fees for the post-offer work the plaintiff’s attorneys did. Rather, the question was whether the district court abused its discretion in lowering the fees in light of the totality of the circumstances." Click here to read the Proskauer Rose article.