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
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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases yesterday, one of which, Lackey v. Stinnie, involved an action brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1983 and should be of particular interest to the many readers of this blog who practice...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions today: Lackey v. Stinnie, No. 23-621: This case clarifies when attorneys’ fees may be awarded to a “prevailing party” in a civil rights lawsuit via 42 U.S.C....more
The Supreme Court of the United States opened up the new term on October 7, 2024. The Court is currently slated to address 40 cases this term. Oral arguments will be heard for nine cases in October and an additional seven in...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in two cases: Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852: This administrative law and statutory interpretation case concerns the federal government’s ability to...more
I have been thinking about what the banking and consumer financial services industry might do to deter state attorneys general and banking agencies from seeking to enforce statutes or promulgating regulations that run afoul...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a recent ruling out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Court assessed a petition for attorney’s fees filed in conjunction with the settlement of a 43-year old sex discrimination...more
Welcome to the Summer 2020 issue of The Employment Law Reporter. This inaugural issue of this quarterly newsletter first reviews the landmark U.S. Supreme Court opinion in which the Court ruled that an employer that fires an...more
Ohio Federal Court Awards Damages to Matco for Breach of Contract, Trademark Infringement, and Misappropriation of Trade Secrets - A federal court in Ohio has granted a franchisor’s unopposed motion for summary judgment...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: After over a decade of litigation between the EEOC and trucking company CRST Van Expedited, the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a federal district court’s order requiring the EEOC to pay $3.3 million in...more
On the last day of the 2019–2020 legislative session, the New York State Senate and Assembly passed an omnibus bill. This legislation, once effective, will overhaul New York’s anti-discrimination laws and uproot precedent...more
When faced with an employment discrimination, harassment or retaliation claim, often the immediate response is, “We are going to defend ourselves and prove we are right,” followed by, “So what will it cost us if we lose?”...more
On February 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Murphy v. Smith, No. 16-1067, holding that when a prisoner receives a judgment under certain civil rights statutes, the district court must apply as much of the...more
A bill prohibiting mandatory arbitration of employment-related claims, introduced in late 2017 before the Massachusetts House of Representatives, continues to gain traction in early 2018. The bill (House Bill 4058), which...more
Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Employer's Class Action Waiver - Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th Cir. 2016) - As a condition of employment, Stephen Morris and Kelly McDaniel were required to sign...more
Under the federal civil rights statutes, plaintiffs who prevail ordinarily receive an award of attorneys’ fees that must be paid by the defendant. But, in order not to deter plaintiffs from filing such claims, the reverse is...more
We all think of December as the season of giving. Unfortunately, prevailing defendants in Title VII cases don’t always feel that way. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prevailing plaintiffs enjoy compensatory...more