How the Boards of Contract Appeals Work—And Why It Matters for Your Bottom Line
The Briefing: Court Says “No Way” To 50 Cent’s Battle Over Skill House
Solicitors General Insights: The Art of Oral Advocacy With Michigan and New Jersey — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
New FLSA Notice Standard, DOL’s PAID Program, Axed Wage and Hour Penalties - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
False Claims Act Insights - Beyond Adversarialism: How to Steer FCA Investigations
Hospice Insights Podcast - Hospice Audit Updates: Hospices Fare Well in Federal Court
Nationwide FLSA Lawsuits Just Got Harder—Here’s Why - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Daily Compliance News: August 1, 2025, The All AI Edition
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
(Podcast) The Briefing: The Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on Eleanor’s Copyright Claim
The Briefing: The Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on Eleanor’s Copyright Claim
(Podcast) The Briefing: No CTRL-ALT-DEL For the Server Test
Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Bivens v. Zep that significantly narrows when an employer can be held liable under Title VII for harassment committed by a third party, such as a customer or client. ...more
Can an employer be held liable for workplace harassment committed by a non-employee? The short answer is “sometimes” – but a federal appeals court just significantly narrowed this liability risk for employers in Kentucky,...more
Many employers assume that once an employee or job applicant files a discrimination lawsuit after receiving a notice of right to sue from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency’s involvement in...more
In 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which arose out of a sex discrimination claim filed by a female police officer. Officer Muldrow was transferred to a different position within...more
Two years ago, the long dormant duty to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices was awakened by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. Dejoy. Gone were the days when an employer could justify the denial of a...more
When is an employer legally responsible for harassment of its employee by one of its customers? A recent court decision may be a relief for employers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Most courts ruling on the...more
In Bivens v. Zep, Inc., No. 24-2109 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025), the Sixth Circuit split with the EEOC and most U.S. Courts of Appeals as to when an employer may be liable under Title VII for harassment by a non-agent (e.g.,...more
An employee tells you a customer just harassed them — what should you do? In Bivens v. Zep, Inc. the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals charts its own course in addressing employer liability for third-party harassment. The Equal...more
On August 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled an employer is not liable for harassment of an employee by a third party unless the employer intended for the harassment to occur. This stark departure...more
For years, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and multiple federal appellate circuits have agreed on the legal standard for proving liability for sexual or other harassment by a third party such as a vendor or...more
In an explicit departure from EEOC guidance and other federal court caselaw, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employer can only be liable for a client/customer’s harassment of its...more
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, 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
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on June 5, 2025, that majority group plaintiffs are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard of showing “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of...more
The United States Supreme Court on June 5, 2025, in a rare unanimous decision, overturned a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that required a plaintiff, a heterosexual, to have evidence as part of her proofs to...more
The Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025 decision to revive a heterosexual woman’s discrimination suit on the basis of sexual orientation against her employer could open a floodgate of future litigation. In a unanimous ruling...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 a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by some lower courts in what are often referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims is...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 Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 2025 WL 1583264, (U.S. June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that majority group plaintiffs (in this instance, a heterosexual plaintiff) do not need to meet...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 U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected use of a special legal test for plaintiffs to prove illegal bias in reverse discrimination cases. ...more
On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court revived the employment discrimination claims of an Ohio woman who contends that she was the victim of “reverse...more
A recent Supreme Court decision clarified that discrimination claims brought by members of majority groups in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases cannot be subject to a heightened evidentiary burden. In Ames v. Ohio...more
More than a year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in its April 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. 346, 144 S. Ct. 967, 218 L. Ed. 2d 322 (2024) that employees need only...more