Toolkit · Labor and Employment

The Employment Litigation Defense Toolkit

42 U.S.C. § 2000

Type
Toolkit
Jurisdiction
National
Date
2025-01-22
Topic
Labor and Employment

A research and resource map for defending employment claims, built for management-side litigators and in-house employment counsel. Ten pillars organize the field: the administrative prerequisites and limitations rules that dispose of claims before the merits, arbitration agreements and class waivers and the statutory carve-outs that now limit them, the burden-shifting frameworks and the different causation standards that apply statute by statute, retaliation as the claim that survives when the underlying claim fails, harassment and the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense with the investigation practice that supports it, class and collective actions under Rule 23 and the FLSA, the documents and data that decide cases in discovery, privilege over internal investigations and the waiver that comes with asserting the defense, damages and the caps and offsets that bound exposure, and dispositive motions with settlement and release architecture. Each pillar states the doctrine, names the controlling authorities, flags the trap and its second-order consequence, and points deeper. An authority shelf collects the statutes, rules, leading cases, and secondary sources. Two appendices supply a causation-standard matrix by statute and a first-thirty-days response sheet for a new charge or complaint.

The Employment Litigation Defense Toolkit

Labor and Employment > Employment Litigation | Published 22 January 2025 - Updated 2 August 2026 | UpLaw - uplaw.us

In brief. Most employment cases are decided by documents created long before anyone contemplated litigation — the performance review that says "great year," the comparator who did the same thing and kept his job, the investigation that was never written down. Defense is largely archaeology, and the quality of the record is set by whoever was managing the workplace two years ago.

Keywords: exhaustion, Morgan, arbitration, Epic Systems, McDonnell Douglas, pretext, Gross, Nassar, Bostock, Muldrow, Burlington Northern, Faragher/Ellerth, Dukes, § 216(b), caps, McKennon

How This Toolkit Is Organized

Ten pillars, each giving the doctrine, the anchors, the trap and its second order consequence, and where to go deeper. Then the authority shelf, then two appendices: a causation-standard matrix and a first-thirty-days response sheet.

Related narrative treatments are The Interactive Process and Anatomy of a Lawful Layoff. Doctrinal treatments sit in Disability Discrimination and Accommodation and Reductions in Force and Severance.

A standing caution. Causation standards, damages caps, and exhaustion rules differ statute by statute, and state fair employment practices acts frequently impose longer periods, broader coverage, uncapped damages, and individual liability. Never analyze a case on the federal statute alone.

Pillar 1 — Administrative Prerequisites and Limitations

Doctrine. Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA require a timely charge with the EEOC before suit; the charging period is 180 days, extended to 300 in a deferral state; and suit must follow within 90 days of the right-to-sue notice.

Anchors. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5; 29 U.S.C. § 626(d) (ADEA). Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (2019) — the charge-filing requirement is a mandatory claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional, and is forfeited if not timely raised. National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) — discrete acts are separately actionable and time-barred if outside the period; hostile environment claims may reach conduct outside it if one act falls within. Ledbetter as superseded by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (each discriminatory paycheck restarts the clock). Ricks/Chardon accrual (the clock runs from notice of the decision, not from its effect). § 1981 (four-year federal catch-all period for post-formation claims; no exhaustion).

Trap. Fort Bend. Exhaustion is waivable, which means a defendant that answers, litigates for a year, and then discovers the plaintiff never charged has forfeited the defense. Screen exhaustion in the first thirty days and plead it.

Trap, second order. Scope of the charge. Claims not raised in the charge and not reasonably related to it are unexhausted — but courts construe charges liberally, and an EEOC investigation that expanded beyond the charge can sweep claims in. Read the charge, the intake questionnaire, and the investigative file together, and note that § 1981 race claims bypass exhaustion entirely with a four-year period.

Go deeper: Appendix B below

Pillar 2 — Arbitration and Class Waivers

Doctrine. Arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers are generally enforceable, subject to contract defenses and to statutory carve-outs.

Anchors. Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497 (2018) (class waivers enforceable; no NLRA conflict). AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (§ 1 exemption limited to transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce); Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022); Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, 601 U.S. 246 (2024) (the exemption turns on what the worker does, not the employer's industry). Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (2022), 9 U.S.C. §§ 401–402 — at the claimant's election, a predispute arbitration agreement or class waiver is unenforceable as to sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022) (no arbitration-specific prejudice requirement for waiver by litigation conduct).

Trap. Morgan v. Sundance. Litigating on the merits before moving to compel can waive arbitration, and the defendant no longer gets the benefit of an arbitration-favoring prejudice requirement. Move to compel first, before answering substantively.

Trap, second order. The EFAA carve-out is broader than its title suggests: where a case includes a sexual harassment claim, courts have read the Act to permit the plaintiff to keep the entire case in court, not merely that claim — so a single harassment count can defeat arbitration of accompanying wage, discrimination, and retaliation claims. Assess the pleading as a whole before assuming the agreement holds.

Pillar 3 — The Burden-Shifting Frameworks and Causation

Doctrine. Circumstantial-evidence discrimination claims run through McDonnell Douglas; the causation standard differs by statute and decides mixed-motive cases.

Anchors. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) — prima facie case, legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, pretext. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (the employer's burden is one of production, not persuasion). Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (disbelief of the employer's explanation, plus the prima facie case, can suffice). Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), as modified by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m) (motivating factor; same-decision limits remedies). Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA requires but-for cause). University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but-for cause). Comcast Corp. v. National Ass'n of African American-Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327 (2020) (§ 1981 requires but-for cause). Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) (discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity is because of sex). Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024) — a transferee need show some harm to a term or condition of employment, not that it was significant, materially adverse, or serious.

Trap. Muldrow. The old "materially adverse employment action" threshold — which disposed of lateral transfer, schedule, and assignment cases at summary judgment — is gone for Title VII discrimination claims. Some harm suffices. Cases the defense would previously have won on the second element now proceed to pretext.

Trap, second order. Pretext is not the same as correctness. The employer need not have been right; it must have honestly believed its reason. But Reeves means a factfinder that disbelieves the explanation may infer discrimination without more — so shifting explanations are the single most dangerous fact in the file. The reason given in the termination meeting, in the position statement, in the interrogatory answer, and at deposition must be the same reason. Lock it down in the first thirty days.

Pillar 4 — Retaliation

Doctrine. Retaliation claims are easier to prove than the underlying discrimination claim, survive the underlying claim's failure, and now constitute the largest share of EEOC charges.

Anchors. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) — the adverse action standard is conduct that would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge; it is not limited to employment-related actions or to the workplace. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (participation in an internal investigation is protected opposition). Thompson v. North American Stainless, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (third-party retaliation against a fiancé is actionable). Nassar (but-for causation). Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity must be very close to establish causation alone).

Trap. The protected activity does not have to be meritorious. An employee who complains in good faith about conduct that turns out to be lawful is protected, so a defendant that wins the discrimination claim outright can still lose the retaliation claim arising from how it responded to the complaint.

Trap, second order. The Burlington Northern standard reaches conduct outside the employment relationship and outside the workplace — a negative reference, a lawsuit, a report to authorities, exclusion from a training or a lunch that matters professionally. Managers who understand "no retaliation" as "do not fire them" continue to commit it, which is why the post-complaint period requires an explicit documented plan, not merely an instruction.

Pillar 5 — Harassment and the Affirmative Defense

Doctrine. Hostile environment liability turns on the harasser's status; for a supervisor's harassment without a tangible employment action, the employer has an affirmative defense built on its own preventive and corrective conduct.

Anchors. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986); Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (severe or pervasive; objective and subjective). Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) — the two-element defense: the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct, and the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities. Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (a "supervisor" is one empowered to take tangible employment actions). Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (same-sex harassment actionable). Coworker and third-party harassment judged on a negligence standard.

Trap. The Faragher/Ellerth defense is not established by having a policy. It requires a policy that was disseminated, multiple reporting channels that bypass the harasser, prompt investigation, and corrective action reasonably calculated to end the conduct — plus proof the plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the process. A defendant with a handbook and no investigation file has one element and needs two.

Trap, second order. Asserting the defense waives privilege over the investigation. An employer that relies on the adequacy of its investigation puts the investigation at issue, and the report, the interview notes, and frequently the investigator's testimony become discoverable. Decide at the outset whether the investigation is a business investigation (discoverable, and the defense) or a privileged legal investigation (protected, but unusable to prove reasonable care) — and structure it accordingly. Trying to have both is how privilege is lost without the defense being gained.

Go deeper: Legal Malpractice and Law Firm Risk Management: A Comprehensive Guide on privilege discipline

Pillar 6 — Class and Collective Actions

Doctrine. Rule 23 governs discrimination class actions; the FLSA and ADEA use an opt-in collective action with a different certification path.

Anchors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) — commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution; a policy of delegating discretion to local managers is not one; and monetary relief that is not incidental cannot proceed under Rule 23(b)(2). Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (damages model must match the liability theory). 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (FLSA collective; opt-in). Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (court-facilitated notice). The two-step Lusardi approach versus the stricter single-step approach adopted in some circuits following Swales v. KLLM Transport, 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021). Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017) and its contested application to FLSA collectives.

Trap. Treating conditional certification as a formality. In circuits applying the lenient two-step standard it nearly always issues, and notice to the class is the settlement event — opt-in rates and the resulting exposure are set before any merits ruling. Where the circuit permits it, front-load the fight: seek pre-notice discovery and oppose conditional certification on a developed record.

Trap, second order. Dukes cuts both ways. It defeated the nationwide class, but its logic invites smaller, unit-level classes where a genuine common policy exists — a single facility, a single compensation formula, a single test. Defense counsel who read Dukes as ending class exposure miss that the plaintiffs' bar restructured around it.

Pillar 7 — Discovery and the Documents That Decide Cases

Doctrine. Employment cases are won and lost on the contemporaneous record, and the defense's exposure is largely fixed before counsel is retained.

Anchors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (proportionality), 34, 37(e) (ESI spoliation: curative measures on prejudice; the severe sanctions of adverse inference, dismissal, or default require intent to deprive). 29 C.F.R. § 1602 (EEOC recordkeeping — personnel records retained one year, extended through final disposition once a charge is filed). Zubulake v. UBS Warburg line on preservation and cost allocation.

Trap. The preservation trigger. The duty attaches when litigation is reasonably anticipated — which is usually the internal complaint, not the charge and certainly not the complaint. Auto-delete on email and messaging platforms continues running in the interim, and Rule 37(e) relief for the plaintiff does not require proving the deleted messages were bad, only prejudice.

Trap, second order. The comparator problem. Defense counsel produce the plaintiff's file and resist producing others; plaintiffs' counsel need comparators and get them. Run the comparator analysis yourself, first — who else did the same thing, what happened to them, and can the difference be explained by something in writing? A comparator discovered by the plaintiff at deposition is worth several multiples of one identified and explained in the position statement.

Pillar 8 — Damages, Caps, and Offsets

Doctrine. Available relief differs sharply by statute, and the caps that bound Title VII do not apply to several parallel claims.

Anchors. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a — compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII and the ADA, capped by employer size ($50,000 / $100,000 / $200,000 / $300,000), with backpay excluded from the cap. No caps under § 1981 or under most state fair employment statutes. ADEA: no compensatory or punitive damages; liquidated damages equal to backpay for willful violations, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b); Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) (willfulness standard). FLSA: unpaid wages plus liquidated damages unless good faith and reasonable grounds are shown, 29 U.S.C. § 260; two-year period, three for willful. Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (punitive damages require malice or reckless indifference; good-faith compliance efforts are a defense to vicarious punitive liability). Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) (backpay presumption). Mitigation — Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982). McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (after-acquired evidence does not bar liability but cuts off backpay from the date of discovery). Front pay as an equitable remedy outside the cap, Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 532 U.S. 843 (2001).

Trap. Kolstad is the most useful and least used defense in the toolkit: an employer may avoid vicarious punitive damages for a manager's conduct contrary to the employer's good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII. That defense is built out of training records, policy dissemination, and prior enforcement — assembled in advance or not at all.

Trap, second order. The cap does not cover the case. Plaintiffs plead § 1981 for race claims and state statutes precisely to escape it, and backpay, front pay, and attorney's fees sit outside the cap regardless. A defendant valuing a Title VII case at $300,000 because of the statutory cap has usually mis-priced it by a wide margin, since fees frequently exceed the merits award.

Pillar 9 — Dispositive Motions and Trial

Doctrine. Summary judgment remains the defense's principal tool, but the standard is applied with the plaintiff-favorable inferences of Reeves and, post-Muldrow, with fewer threshold exits.

Anchors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). Reeves (disbelief plus prima facie case may defeat summary judgment). St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (rejection of the employer's reason compels no finding for the plaintiff). Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (no direct-evidence requirement for a mixed-motive instruction). Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (cat's paw — a biased subordinate's influence can be imputed to a neutral decisionmaker).

Trap. Staub. An independent decisionmaker does not break the chain if the decision was proximately caused by a biased supervisor's report or recommendation. The defense that "the VP who made the call had no idea" fails unless the VP conducted an independent investigation that was not itself tainted by the biased input.

Trap, second order. The honest belief framing at trial. Jurors evaluate whether the employer's process was fair, not whether its conclusion was legally sufficient — so a technically defensible termination reached through a process with no interview of the employee, no comparator check, and no documentation reads as pretext regardless of the underlying merit. Try the process, not just the reason.

Pillar 10 — Settlement and Release Architecture

Doctrine. An employment settlement must satisfy statute-specific waiver formalities, cannot release certain rights at all, and carries tax and reporting consequences that shape the number.

Anchors. OWBPA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(f) (ADEA waiver: consideration beyond entitlement, written advice to consult counsel, 21 days to consider — 45 for a group program with decisional-unit disclosures — and 7 days to revoke). Oubre v. Entergy Operations, 522 U.S. 422 (1998) (a non-compliant waiver is ineffective and the employee need not tender back). FLSA settlements require DOL or court approval (Lynn's Food Stores). EEOC charge-filing and participation rights are not waivable. SEC Rule 21F-17. McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023) (overbroad confidentiality and non-disparagement). Speak Out Act; 26 U.S.C. § 162(q). Tax: § 104(a)(2); Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005); § 62(a)(20).

Trap. Oubre. A defective OWBPA release is void as to the ADEA claim and the employee keeps the money. The defects are trivial and recurring — an agreement made effective on signature despite a stated revocation period, or "additional" consideration the employee was already owed under a severance plan.

Trap, second order. McLaren Macomb liability attaches on offer, not signature. An employer using a pre-2023 severance template commits an unfair labor practice every time it hands one to a non-supervisory employee, whether or not the employee signs — which means the template itself is the violation.

Go deeper: Drafting and Closing a Settlement Agreement: A Practical Checklist · Settling a Civil Case: A Comprehensive Guide

The Authority Shelf

Statutes

Rules and regulations

  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, 26, 37(e), 56, 68
  • 29 C.F.R. Part 1602 (recordkeeping); Part 1604 (sex); Part 1605 (religion); Part 1607 (Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures); Part 1625 (ADEA); Part 1630 (ADA); Part 1635 (GINA)
  • EEOC Compliance Manual; EEOC enforcement guidance on retaliation, harassment, and religious accommodation

Leading cases

  • McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) · Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) · Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) · Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) · St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ'g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) · Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) · Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) · Oubre v. Entergy Operations, 522 U.S. 422 (1998) · Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) · Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) · Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) · Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) · Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) · Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) · Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 555 U.S. 271 (2009) · Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) · Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) · Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) · Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) · Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) · Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497 (2018) · Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (2019) · Comcast Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of African American-Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327 (2020) · Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) · Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022) · Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023) · Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024)

Secondary sources

  • Barbara Lindemann, Paul Grossman & C. Geoffrey Weirich, Employment Discrimination Law (ABA) — the standard treatise
  • The Developing Labor Law (ABA) for the NLRA overlay
  • Wage and Hour Laws: A State-by-State Survey (ABA); Ellen C. Kearns, The Fair Labor Standards Act (ABA)
  • Alba Conte, Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Law and Practice
  • Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal; ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law; Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
  • EEOC charge statistics and litigation reports — the empirical baseline for exposure modeling
  • Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation (class and collective practice)

Appendix A — Causation and Remedies by Statute

Statute Causation Compensatory / punitive Liquidated Fees Exhaustion
Title VII (discrimination) Motivating factor; same-decision limits remedies Yes, capped by employer size No Yes EEOC charge
Title VII (retaliation) But-for (Nassar) Yes, capped No Yes EEOC charge
§ 1981 But-for (Comcast) Yes, uncapped No Yes None; 4-year period
ADEA But-for (Gross) None Yes, for willful Yes EEOC charge
ADA But-for for discrimination; failure to accommodate is its own theory Yes, capped No Yes EEOC charge
FLSA / EPA Strict liability for underpayment No Yes, unless good faith Yes None (EPA: none)
FMLA Interference (no intent) and retaliation theories Wages/benefits lost, not emotional distress Yes, unless good faith Yes None
USERRA Motivating factor, employer must show same action Lost wages/benefits Yes, for willful Yes None
State FEP acts Varies; often more plaintiff-friendly Frequently uncapped; often individual liability Varies Yes Varies

How to use it. Identify every statute pleaded and analyze each separately. A case that looks capped under Title VII is frequently uncapped under § 1981 or the state act, and the ADEA's absence of compensatory damages is offset by liquidated damages on a willfulness finding.

Appendix B — First Thirty Days Response Sheet

Day Action
1 Issue a litigation hold — email, messaging platforms, HRIS, personnel and payroll files, security footage, and the relevant managers' devices. Suspend auto-delete.
1 Confirm the preservation trigger date; if an internal complaint preceded the charge, the duty attached then
1–3 Collect and read the personnel file, performance reviews, discipline records, compensation history, and the separation documents
1–3 Identify every decisionmaker and every person who influenced the decision (Staub cat's paw)
3–5 Screen exhaustion and timeliness: charge date, deferral state, 180/300 days, right-to-sue date, Morgan discrete acts, § 1981 four-year alternative
3–5 Screen for an enforceable arbitration agreement — and if one exists, plan to move to compel before substantive litigation (Morgan v. Sundance)
3–5 Screen for the EFAA carve-out if any harassment claim is pleaded
5–10 Run the comparator analysis yourself: who else did this, what happened, and what document explains the difference
5–10 Interview decisionmakers — before memories align. Decide privilege posture first
5–10 Decide the investigation privilege question: business investigation (discoverable, supports Faragher/Ellerth) or legal investigation (privileged, unusable as the defense). Do not blur them
10–15 Lock the articulated reason. It must be identical in the termination meeting record, position statement, interrogatories, and deposition
10–15 Assess damages exposure across every statute pleaded, using Appendix A — not the Title VII cap alone
15–20 Draft the position statement with supporting documents; assume the plaintiff will receive it
15–20 Assess retaliation exposure for everything that has happened since the complaint, and put a written plan around the plaintiff's ongoing employment
20–30 Evaluate early resolution against defense costs, fee exposure, and the collateral risk of a class or collective claim
20–30 If a class or collective is plausible, assess pre-notice discovery and the circuit's certification standard
Ongoing Preserve, document, and do not let the reason change

Related Documents

Articles

Guides

Checklists

Toolkits