Click here for a full transcript of the episode.

In this episode, we discuss some real-life discrimination lawsuits and what we can learn from them with employment attorney Gina Carrillo. In the Leibas v. Dart case that was in the 7th District Federal Court in 2024, the plaintiff sought accommodations from her employer for a number of disabilities. Her doctor and the form she filled out for her employer stated that she was unable to stand for long periods, and the employer informed her there was no reasonable accommodation available to her. The plaintiff told them she could stand longer than her doctor and form said, but the employer maintained that they couldn’t accommodate her.

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, whose Supreme Court decision came out in 2024, Miss Muldrow was a female Sergeant with the St. Louis Police Department and was transferred to another division. She alleged that this constituted sex discrimination under Title VII, because though her rank and pay were not changed, the position she was transferred to was less prestigious and her old position was filled by a male employee.

In Amos v. Lampo Group from the 6th Circuit in 2024, the plaintiff alleges that he was criticized for social distancing and wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic, and according to him these acts were consistent with his deeply held beliefs of the Golden Rule and promoting the safety of his family and others. He also alleged that the employer aggressively and regularly promoted their own religious beliefs against COVID-19 precautions while demeaning the plaintiff’s beliefs. When he was fired, the plaintiff claimed he was discriminated against based on his religious practices.

Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections in the 10th Circuit is still working its way through the courts. In this case, the plaintiff was employed by the Colorado DOC, which had a mandatory employee equity, diversity, and inclusion training (EDI). He complained that the EDI training was racially discriminatory and its teachings were abusive due to content directed toward white people.

In Okonowsky v. Garland, the plaintiff reported to multiple supervisors that a coworker was posting harassing content on his personal Instagram, including sexually harassing and violent posts that referred specifically to her.

In this episode’s listener question, we’re asked for our thoughts on “quiet firing,” or not giving work to an unwanted employee in order to encourage them to quit. In the news, we discuss a trend toward unionization in the banking industry.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Purple Ink
• Susan Tinder White Consulting
• Episode 118, ”You and the EEOC”
• ”Discrimination Settlement: What to Expect and What to Ask For”
• ”Correctional Officer Requiring Unplanned Breaks Loses ADA Claim” (Leibas v. Dart)
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
• Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Amos v. Lampo Group
• ”Dave Ramsey’s company fires employees over premarital sex, court documents say”
• Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections
• Okonowsky v. Garland
• Gina on LinkedIn
• Email Gina
• ”Banking’s unionization wave: Wells Fargo employees lead the way”
• SHRM credit evaluation – the SHRM credit code for this episode will expire on March 10, 2026
• JoyPowered® Patreon Page
• JoyPowered® on LinkedIn
• JoyPowered® on Instagram
• Email JoyPowered®

Let us know what you think! Rate and review our podcast on Apple Podcasts – we love hearing your feedback, and it helps people find our show.