The Journey of Litigation
Quick Guide to Administrative Hearings
Wire Fraud Litigants Beware: Fourth Circuit Ruling Protects the Banks — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Solicitors General Insights: The Tale of Two Washingtons — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
How confidential is a request to access or challenge information in INTERPOL’s files?
Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 64 - Cages We Built: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America
Solicitors General Insights: The Legal Frontlines in Iowa and Indiana — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
The Briefing: The Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on Eleanor’s Copyright Claim
The Briefing: No CTRL-ALT-DEL For the Server Test
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Solicitors General Insights: A Deep Dive With Mississippi and Tennessee Solicitors General — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Update on the State of Non-compete Restrictions (LaborSpeak)
UPIC Audits
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
#WorkforceWednesday®: Federal Contractors Alert - DEI Restrictions Reinstated by Appeals Court - Employment Law This Week®
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Exploring Procedural Justice | Judge Steve Leben | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Handling Post-Conviction Death Penalty Cases Pro Bono | McKenzie Edwards | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Inside the Fourth Court of Appeals’ Clerk’s Office | Michael Cruz | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally prohibits covered employers from taking adverse actions against employees on the basis of race, sex, and other protected categories. Employee discipline is often the subject...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that courts cannot apply a heightened evidentiary standard to majority-group plaintiffs when deciding discrimination claims. The...more
In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., the U.S. Supreme Court recently settled a circuit split and held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which was applied only to plaintiffs from majority...more
The Supreme Court has voted unanimously to end a Circuit Court split regarding whether members of a “majority group” have additional evidentiary burdens when bringing a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for...more
In a case filed by a heterosexual woman claiming she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that she should not be required to meet a higher standard to prove...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the dismissal of a heterosexual woman’s Title VII claims, concluding that she was improperly subjected to a heightened prima facie standard that required her to show...more
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Hamilton v. Dallas County expanded the scope of claims employees may pursue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is the anti-discrimination statute...more
According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, Black men in the U.S. are more likely to be arrested and have criminal convictions on their records than their white counterparts. Last week, a split Second Circuit Court of...more
...As most contractors know, a good protest requires a lot of thought and commitment to convince an agency or tribunal of why corrective action should be taken. The last thing a protester wants is to learn – too late – that...more
On a matter of first impression, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit, in Durham v. Rural/Metro Corp., applied the test for indirect evidence of intentional pregnancy discrimination enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Young v. UPS....more
The Second Circuit has held that employees who allege they were underpaid on the basis of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, are not required to first establish an Equal Pay Act claim but rather...more
In recent years, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina and South Carolina) has lowered the bar for plaintiffs to take racial harassment claims to a jury trial when the alleged conduct involved use...more
Employment law is full of burden-shifting, prima facie standards and evidentiary hurdles. Sometimes, even the courts apply the wrong standard at the wrong stage of a case. That appears to be what happened in the case of...more
The Third Circuit’s recent decision in Andujar v. General Nutrition Corporation (GNC) should remind employers that termination of an employee based on poor performance should result from clear policies, and that personalized...more
You might have seen all the buzz about the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation holding that job applicants were not covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Does that mean...more
Plaintiffs can bring employment discrimination claims under federal civil rights laws using one of two theories. Disparate treatment claims require the plaintiff to produce evidence of intent to discriminate due to a...more
In a case of first impression, a federal appeals court just found that an applicant’s request for a religious accommodation did not constitute protected activity under Title VII for the purpose of establishing a retaliation...more
A recent ruling by the federal appeals court that covers Oklahoma reminds employers that they must treat pregnant employees with health conditions or work limitations the same as any other employee with health conditions or...more
Is there such a thing as a disparate impact age claim? The Eleventh circuit last week says not for people applying for a job. On October 5, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion shutting down claims...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: After a black woman’s employment offer was rescinded because she refused to cut off her dreadlocks in violation of a company grooming policy, the EEOC sued under Title VII for discrimination on the basis...more
Last week the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a case the EEOC filed over a job applicant’s short dreadlocks. In 2010, Chastity Jones, an African American, applied for a position with...more
Title VII and related federal anti-discrimination laws prohibit employers from discriminating against persons based on their membership in a protected category. These discrimination prohibitions include pay disparities. What...more
Employee's Inability To Work For A Particular Supervisor Does Not Constitute A "Disability" - Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Found., 237 Cal. App. 4th 78 (2015) - Michaelin Higgins-Williams worked as a clinical...more
Last Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), which involves a claim of pregnancy discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)....more