Proof in Trial: University of Louisville
2021 Bid Protest Decisions with Far-Reaching Impacts for Government Contractors
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Risk of Personal Injury Claims from COVID-19 and What to Do About It
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
VIDEO: Will Pending Federal Covid-19 Legislation Preempt Longstanding State Laws Regarding the Burden of Proof in Workers’ Compensation Claims?
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
II-31- The Changing 9 to 5 From 1980 to Today
On June 18, 2025, the Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruled on the appeal of a works council member (case reference: 7 AZR 50/24). The plaintiff was employed based on a fixed-term employment contract. This contract was concluded...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
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that plaintiffs in the majority group within a protected class have the same burden of proof at summary judgment to demonstrate...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, overruling the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule in employment discrimination cases. The background circumstances rule required members of a...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
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (the EPA) and related state laws require employers to pay men and women equally for equal work. ...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to meet a more stringent burden of proof in order to prove unlawful employment discrimination under Title VII of the...more
Just today, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a contentious disagreement between courts regarding the burden of proof required to bring a disparate treatment claim under Title VII. While the majority of appeals courts in the...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
On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which is a case that will determine whether a plaintiff bringing a so-called reverse discrimination claim (where, for...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that could alter the legal landscape for employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, which questioned whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly decided that a heterosexual plaintiff should have...more
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has issued an opinion interpreting, for the first time, several provisions of the Puerto Rico Labor Reform Act of 2017, specifically holding the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework...more
The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) recently issued a proposed rule which, if adopted, would codify and set forth the legal standard required in disparate impact claims brought under the New Jersey Law Against...more
A newly enacted, under-the-radar statute in California could undermine efforts by employers to challenge the expert opinion testimony regarding alleged emotional distress offered by employees at trial. In many if not most...more
One of the most important decisions in employment discrimination law this year remains the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Balderson v. Lincare Inc., in which the Court reiterated that Title VII plaintiffs (and...more
The Iowa Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rumsey v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., et. al provides needed clarity in what the court described as the “murky” intersection between workers’ compensation and disability...more
The UK Supreme Court decision in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi confirms that employees must still prove facts from which a tribunal could draw an inference of discrimination before their claim can proceed, despite a change of...more
For years, many federal contractors have criticized the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) for misusing statistical methods to support allegations of discrimination against federal contractors and for...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit has recently decided a case involving an extremely obese bus driver and denied his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as...more
An individual may file a claim under Tennessee’s “whistleblower statute”—the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA)—if she was fired solely for reporting or refusing to participate in illegal activity. Similar to federal law,...more
New York State lawmakers have approved broad legislation that will lower the burden on plaintiffs seeking to prove claims of workplace harassment under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), as well as extend the...more
In the closing days of its session, the New York State Legislature has passed sweeping changes to New York’s employment discrimination and harassment law. Major amendments to the state’s Human Rights Law significantly lower...more
A federal Court of Appeals just ruled that extreme obesity not caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition does not qualify as an impairment under the ADA. Under the 7th Circuit’s June 12 ruling, proof that...more
Massachusetts employers’ decision-making processes with regards to lateral, internal employee transfers are now subject to possible state law discrimination claims. On January 29, 2019, the SJC issued its decision in Yee v....more