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 July 29, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum offering specific examples of what the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) considers to be unlawful discriminatory policies and practices under federal civil...more
On July 30, 2025, the Department of Justice released a memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi to all federal agencies providing guidance for recipients of federal funding regarding unlawful discrimination....more
The U.S. Department of Justice recently issued a memorandum providing additional clarity and guidance on DEI-related programs and policies. The memo emphasizes that federally funded entities may not make decisions—such as...more
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
It was announced on July 7 that IBM had resolved a former consultant’s “reverse” discrimination claim for an undisclosed sum, closing the door on his Title VII race and sex discrimination lawsuit. This settlement is yet...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that members of a majority group are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail...more
Recently, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that lowered the bar for employees seeking to sue their employer. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a heterosexual white woman claimed that she suffered discrimination...more
On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous and highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039, clarified a critical point in employment law: all employees—regardless of...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
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, significantly impacting how employment discrimination claims brought by members of a majority group—such as...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, vacating and remanding a Sixth Circuit ruling against a heterosexual woman in a Title VII “reverse...more
The 2019 film “Late Night,” written by and starring Mindy Kaling, tells the story of a late-night talk show host, Katherine Newbury, played by Emma Thompson, whose all-male, all-white writing staff scrambles to add a female...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that reverse discrimination claims are no longer subject to different rules. This decision alters the landscape...more
A recent Supreme Court decision is reshaping how employers must think about workplace discrimination—confirming that all employees, majority or minority, are held to the same legal standard under Title VII. This shift could...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
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not...more
When I think of employment discrimination, I generally think of someone in a traditional majority group (e.g., white or male) firing someone in a minority group (e.g., African American or female) because of sex or race. But...more
In a landmark ruling significantly changing how workplace discrimination claims are litigated, the U.S. Supreme Court has removed a major barrier for plaintiffs alleging “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII. In...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, concluding that courts cannot require members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the split among federal circuits and held that the same standard used to evaluate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to all...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