Disparate Impact & Enforcement Rollbacks: What’s the Tea in L&E?
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
On May 15, 2025, a federal district court in Texas vacated sections of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC or the “Commission”) 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the “2024 Enforcement...more
Don't expect the EEOC to appeal. In April 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. The Enforcement Guidance addressed, among other things, harassment...more
In its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees based on their...more
On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the “Guidance”). The Guidance sets forth the EEOC’s position on harassment that constitutes...more
Based on praise from various friends and colleagues, the lovely Mrs. Reed and I recently began watching Greenleaf, a series on the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) that ran from 2016 to 2020....more
Sixth Circuit Will Not Expand Landmark Title VII Case of Bostock v Clayton County to ADEA Claims - Employers in the Sixth Circuit Gain Predictability in the Test for Determining Claims Under the ADEA... ...more
That this past year was the most challenging year in your professional life is an almost certainty. You were forced to learn entirely new statutory schemes, absorb new local health directives on a near-daily basis, create a...more
I have written many, many, many, many times about the transgender funeral director who was terminated from her job after she told the owner that she would begin presenting as a female. The Equal Employment Opportunity...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following opinions: Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618; Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623; R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that LGTBQ+ employees are protected from workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court issued its decision in three consolidated cases: Bostock v....more
In a historic 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer who discriminates against an employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. 590 U. S. ____ (2020). This landmark...more
In an historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity/expression discrimination are prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Bostock v. Clayton County,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that federal law protects gay, lesbian, and transgender people from discrimination in employment. The case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, involved Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of “sex” discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Justice...more
On June 15, 2020 the United States Supreme Court handed down a momentous decision ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects gay and transgender employees from workplace discrimination. The...more
In a landmark decision for LGBTQ+ rights in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 15, 2020, that federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for being gay or transgender....more
Today, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status in the...more
Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling as to whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The...more
Employers have long known that gender stereotyping is not allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. ...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The third key trend from our 16th Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report involves governmental enforcement litigation, including an overview of priorities and filings by the EEOC, the U.S....more
Employers have long known that gender stereotyping is not allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. However, there has been some confusion over whether this prohibition...more
On October 8, 2019, the United States Supreme Court heard two oral arguments in three highly anticipated cases centered on the controversial issue of whether sexual orientation and transgender status fall within the protected...more
On October 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether existing federal law prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or transgender status. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
HR Professionals will soon know the answer to this question. The United States Supreme Court is preparing to settle a contentious debate on employee protections under federal employment discrimination laws. On October...more