At the end of its latest term last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major decision regarding the ability of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive branch regulations and executive...more
Last week in a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to claims by a former employee that changes to her retiree medical benefits discriminated against her...more
6/27/2025
/ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ,
Appeals ,
Disability Discrimination ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employment Discrimination ,
Employment Litigation ,
Federal Labor Laws ,
Former Employee ,
Retirement Plan ,
SCOTUS ,
Stanley v City of Sanford Florida
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that has resulted in profound changes to when employees can claim discrimination relating to job decisions that do not appear to have much...more
6/20/2025
/ Anti-Discrimination Policies ,
Employee Rights ,
Employee Training ,
Employment Discrimination ,
Employment Litigation ,
Human Resources Professionals ,
Lateral Transfers ,
Muldrow v City of St Louis ,
Risk Management ,
SCOTUS ,
Supervisors ,
Title VII
Employers are familiar with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions that apply to disabled employees or applicants. However, other portions of the law apply similar prohibitions against discrimination by government...more
6/20/2025
/ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ,
Appeals ,
Bad Faith ,
Damages ,
Disability Discrimination ,
Educational Institutions ,
Government Agencies ,
Public Accommodation ,
Public Schools ,
Reasonable Accommodation ,
Rehabilitation Act ,
School Districts ,
SCOTUS ,
Students
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected use of a special legal test for plaintiffs to prove illegal bias in reverse discrimination cases. ...more
6/13/2025
/ Ames v Ohio Department of Youth Services ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Civil Rights Act ,
Employment Discrimination ,
Employment Litigation ,
Evidentiary Standards ,
Protected Class ,
Reverse Discrimination ,
SCOTUS ,
Sex Discrimination ,
Title VII
On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision interpreting the limitations period for filing lawsuits under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. ...more
6/6/2025
/ Appeals ,
Civil Rights Act ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Employment Discrimination ,
Employment Litigation ,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ,
Judicial Authority ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Popular ,
Race Discrimination ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined review of a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejecting a facial challenge to the way the Department of Labor and federal courts determine exempt versus non-exempt duties under...more
Since 1973, federal courts reviewing claims of employment discrimination have used a framework first established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonnell Douglas decision. Under this framework, plaintiffs must show a prima facie...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding former President Joe Biden’s executive order increasing the minimum wage applicable to employees of certain...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could have significant impacts on employee retiree medical insurance plans. In Stanley v. City of Sanford, a retired city employee alleges that Sanford’s...more
Earlier this year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia) issued a decision that provides employers with an important defense to some Family and Medical Leave Act...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a petition requesting review of a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia) decision that set a low bar for plaintiffs to plead...more
The new Supreme Court term has just begun, and already the justices have agreed to hear a case with implications for employers across the United States. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services involves a heterosexual...more
The intricacies of federal administrative law can feel far removed from business’s day-to-day operations, but the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo could have profound impacts on the...more
Forty years ago, the Supreme Court adopted a doctrine that has allowed federal agencies to make the final call on interpreting ambiguous laws. Today, the court overruled that doctrine and held that courts, not agencies, are...more
7/1/2024
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Chevron Deference ,
Chevron v NRDC ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Government Agencies ,
Judicial Authority ,
Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo ,
National Marine Fisheries Service ,
Regulatory Authority ,
Relentless Inc v US Department of Commerce ,
SCOTUS ,
Stare Decisis ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Unconstitutional Condition
In unusual circumstances arising during unionization campaigns, the National Labor Relations Board can seek a so-called Section 10(j) injunction to immediately order the employer or union to cease illegal acts associated with...more
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers bear the burden of proving the applicability of an exemption from overtime and/or minimum wage requirements. Earlier this year in E.M.D. Sales Inc. v. Carrera, the Fourth Circuit...more
Mandatory arbitration agreements remain popular for employers concerned about the cost, delays, and unpredictability of traditional litigation. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires federal courts to defer in most...more
In order to demonstrate discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, plaintiffs must show that they suffered an adverse employment action. When this action involves a termination, salary reduction or other...more
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides employers with wide discretion to require that disputes with employees be subject to mandatory arbitration rather than proceeding through the court system. Many employers favor...more
On March 18, the U.S. Supreme Court denied petition for review of an appellate court decision addressing an important question for many employers. In Chancey v. BASF Corp., the Supreme Court declined review of a Fifth Circuit...more
Last week in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an employee who sued his former employer for retaliatory termination did not need to prove a retaliatory intent behind the decision. Murray v. UBS...more
2/16/2024
/ Adverse Employment Action ,
Anti-Retaliation Provisions ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Intent ,
Murray v UBS Securities LLC ,
Retaliation ,
Sarbanes-Oxley ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Violations ,
UBS ,
Whistleblower Protection Policies ,
Whistleblowers
Much to the dismay of many small businesses, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed its review of a case that could have limited high-volume lawsuits against entities alleged to have violated public accommodation...more
In last term’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly increased employers’ obligation to consider religious exemption requests under Title VII. Rather than the previous de minimus burden standard,...more
12/8/2023
/ Appeals ,
Civil Rights Act ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Dismissals ,
Employment Litigation ,
Groff v DeJoy ,
Healthcare Facilities ,
Healthcare Workers ,
Reasonable Accommodation ,
Religious Accommodation ,
Religious Discrimination ,
SCOTUS ,
Title VII ,
Undue Hardship ,
Vaccinations
Following the Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action decision, legal press publications have reported about complaints and enforcement threats sent to law firms based on their diversity initiatives. In some cases, these...more
10/23/2023
/ Affirmative Action ,
Civil Rights Act ,
Diversity ,
Diversity and Inclusion Standards (D&I) ,
Employment Discrimination ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Job Applicants ,
Law Practice Management ,
SCOTUS ,
Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard College ,
Students for Fair Admissions v University of North Carolina