Enforcement Priorities of the Second Trump Administration: The False Claims Act
#WorkforceWednesday®: New DOL Leadership, NLRB Quorum, EEOC Enforcement Priorities - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: How Will Trump’s Federal Changes Impact Employers? - Employment Law This Week®
Building Bridges – Rev. Al Sharpton’s Blueprint for Harlem’s Museum of Civil Rights
#WorkforceWednesday® - Key SCOTUS Decisions This Term for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
Webinar: Is Your DEI Policy Setting You Up for a Lawsuit?
DE Under 3: Title VII Prohibits Discriminatory Job Transfers Even Without Significant Harm, U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Ruled
DE Under 3: EEOC Consent Decree Illustrated Enforcement Stance Regarding Natural Hair Texture & Race Discrimination
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Enforcement Plan, California Expands Paid Sick Leave, and Strikes Across the Country - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: U.S. EEOC Announced Year-End Litigation Round-Up for Fiscal Year 2023
#WorkforceWednesday: The Ripple Effect of the Supreme Court’s SFFA Ruling for Diversity in the Workplace - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VII-134-Panel Discussion on Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Ruling and the Impact on Employer DEI Programs
DE Under 3: Title VII Actionable Adverse Employment Actions Not Limited to Only “Ultimate” Employment Decisions
Supreme Court Miniseries: Religious Accommodation at Work
Employment Law Now VII-133 - Hot Summer Employment Law Developments
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Introduces Heightened Standard for Religious Accommodation, Rules Against Affirmative Action, Protects “Expressive” Services - Employment Law This Week®
Business Better Podcast Episode: Is DEI at Risk? Considerations on the US Supreme Court Ruling Against Affirmative Action Programs
DE Under 3: New Controversial Proposed Rule Affecting Title VII
Jorge Hernandez-Toraño Talks About the Importance of Moving the Needle Forward for Hispanics
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
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
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
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
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a significant question regarding class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The question...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on the contentious issue of reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars disparate treatment of employees on the basis of race, color, religion,...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 Supreme Court unanimously held that a Plaintiff alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII be held to the same standard as if they belonged to another suspect class. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth...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
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court invalidated how some courts evaluated so-called “reverse discrimination” cases. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that a majority-group plaintiff need not show “background...more
The United States Supreme Court has held that the evidentiary standards for “reverse discrimination” claims under federal employment law must be the same as those set for claims brought by members of minority groups....more
On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision interpreting the limitations period for filing lawsuits under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. ...more
On June 5th the U.S. Supreme Court held that majority-group plaintiffs do not have to show special “background circumstances” to support a Title VII discrimination claim. ...more
In Williams v. Reed, 145 S. Ct. 465 (2025), the United States Supreme Court reversed an Alabama Supreme Court decision affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims for lack of jurisdiction, based on the...more
A federal judge in Texas issued a decision on May 15, 2025, striking down portions of the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on protections against employment discrimination based on gender identity and/or sexual orientation....more
Key Takeaways - - Employers have recently prevailed in several cases across the country in which plaintiffs attacked diversity training and other DEI-related initiatives in the workplace. Decisions have indicated that many...more
On April 23, 2025, the White House issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Education to investigate and hold accountable accreditors of institutions of higher education that engage in unlawful discriminatory...more
On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lackey v. Stinnie that plaintiffs who gain preliminary injunctive relief before an action becomes moot do not qualify as “prevailing parties” for attorney’s fees under 42...more
Washington Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Davis, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D247 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 23, 2025) - A trial court’s denial of summary judgment was overturned after an appellate court found that a job applicant failed to meet the...more
In a case that has profound implications for the regulated community, particularly in the realms of environmental justice, civil rights, and land use planning, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has permitted plaintiffs...more
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Bilotti v. Fla DOC - postconviction relief - DeMarcus v. Univ of S Ala - Title IX, § 1983, volleyball coach, mistreatment - Joseph v. Bd of Regents Univ Ga - en banc denial,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lackey v. Stinnie, 145 S. Ct. 659 (2025), limits the ability of civil rights litigants to recover their attorney fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, specifically...more
In Retzios v. Epic Systems Corp., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal brought by the plaintiff, a former employee of Epic, who was fired after she refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The...more