Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.

This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!

A single HR form can decide a lawsuit. We dig into Shear v. Sisters of Charity to show how a mandatory EAP referral and a required compliance-reporting form collided with the Supreme Court’s new “some harm” standard from Muldrow v. City of St. Louis—shifting what counts as an adverse employment action under the ADA and Title VII. The story tracks a familiar arc—productivity issues, a performance improvement plan (PIP), and a sudden turn when coworkers report safety concerns—then pivots to a tougher question: when does care become coercion?

We walk through the core facts with clarity: the performance improvement plan, the mandatory referral to an outside EAP provider, and the form that would send attendance and treatment compliance back to the employer as a condition of keeping the job. That form becomes the fault line. Under the old “significant change” rule, a court might see the referral as inconvenient but not legally adverse. After Muldro, the bar drops. Non-monetary harms like coerced disclosures and loss of autonomy now qualify if they leave an employee worse off in a tangible way. We also weigh the employer’s best defense—policy consistency across employees—and why uniform rules do not automatically defeat a “regarded as disabled” claim when the trigger is a perceived mental health condition.

You’ll hear practical guidance woven through the analysis. For employers: narrow data collection, separate safety from performance, document objective reasons, and avoid tying privacy waivers to job survival. For employees: understand how “some harm” broadens viable claims, especially around privacy and compelled consent. By the end, you’ll see how Muldro reshapes risk around EAP mandates, monitoring, lateral transfers, and other once “minor” actions—and why the Shear case will influence where courts draw the line between genuine concern and unlawful stereotyping. If this conversation helps you think differently about policy, privacy, and workplace fairness, subscribe, share the episode with a colleague, and leave a quick review to tell us what resonated most.

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.

For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.

Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.