Off the Clock, On the Radar: Managing Off-Duty Conduct and Workplace Impact
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
Law Firm ERGs Under Scrutiny: Navigating Compliance, Risk, and Culture - On Record PR
The Changing Landscape of EEOC Enforcement and Disparate Impact
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 44: Conducting Effective Workplace Investigations with Kimberly Hewitt and Antwan Lofton of Duke University
Navigating DEI in a Shifting Legal Landscape: Insights From Late Night — Hiring to Firing Podcast
What's the Tea in L&E? Why You Need Policies for Temps and Other Contractors
A Deep Dive into HUD's New Guidance on AI-Driven Targeted Advertising — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Non-Disparagement Settlements in New Jersey, DOL's AI Guidelines, OSHA Regions Shift - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? Weight Discrimination
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 3: Top Labor & Employment Issues for 2024 with Jennie Cluverius, Cherie Blackburn, and Christy Rogers
Updates to Statute 1557 that Healthcare Providers Need to Know
DE Under 3: New Administrative Review Board Decision from March Sets Down New Backpay Calculation in Litigated OFCCP Cases
DE Under 3: OFCCP Discrimination Enforcement Statistics Hit New Lows
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Issues Stericycle Decision, EEOC Proposes Pregnant Worker Rule, EEOC Settles First AI Anti-Discrimination Suit - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: OFCCP Announced “Pre-Enforcement Notice & Conciliation Procedures” Final Rule
What's the Tea in L&E? Tattoos, Piercings, and Leggings, Oh My! Is It Time To Review Your Workplace Dress Code?
California Employment News: The Basics of Mandatory Harassment Prevention Training
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Mandatory Harassment Prevention Training
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025), making clear that an employee-plaintiff who is a member of a majority group cannot be held...more
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees equal protection to all employees, even if they belong to majority or minority groups....more
In a decision issued June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously found that the burden of proof on a plaintiff asserting an employment discrimination claim is the same, regardless of whether the plaintiff is...more
On June 5, 2025, in a 9-0 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that members of a “majority group” do not have to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a...more
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson states that Title VII does not require a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority” group to present “additional background circumstances” as the lower court had...more
Before June 5, 2025, the law (at least in some jurisdictions) was that majority-group employees (e.g., white or heterosexual) had to show additional “background circumstances” in addition to a prima facie case to prove...more
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that Title VII’s protections against discrimination do not require majority group individuals (including white people, men, and heterosexuals) to...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court last Thursday held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes no additional requirements on majority-group...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, resolving a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit split in the matter of Ames v. Ohio Dep't. of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ____ (2025). The Supreme Court...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of petitioner, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who commenced a reverse discrimination case against her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth...more
Hune 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in the case of Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, that “the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a...more
On June 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision making it easier for employees to prove claims of so-called “reverse” discrimination (i.e., suits brought by a member of a majority group alleging to have been treated...more
On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “background circumstances” test previously applied by several federal circuits in “reverse discrimination” cases....more
The U.S. Supreme Court set the record straight on June 5, 2025 — reminding employers that all employees are created equal when it comes to Title VII litigation in federal court. The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of...more