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
Reshaping the litigation landscape for workplace discrimination claims, last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540 (June 5, 2025), that plaintiffs bringing so-called...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
Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral arguments in a case to determine whether employees who are part of a majority group must meet a higher standard to prove discrimination....more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that challenges the heightened evidentiary burden imposed on majority-group plaintiffs in Title VII...more
On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court and all three counsel appearing before it in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, appeared to walk away in “radical agreement” — as noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch — that a...more
Recent executive orders have caused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to abandon litigation and guidance on LGBTQ+ protections and other areas that were priorities during the Biden administration....more
I reported a few weeks ago that President Trump fired two Democratic Commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (former Chair Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels). He appointed Commissioner Andrea Lucas...more
“The Hamilton decision highlights the need for employers to stay up to date on legal developments. In this one decision, the Fifth Circuit opened the door for claims that just one day earlier were not actionable. Reviewing...more
In a unique, interactive session that was part of the firm’s annual In-House Counsel seminar, participants evaluated potential DEI outcomes by analyzing three fictional scenarios. With elements pulled from real-life cases,...more
A few months ago, we published an alert noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The case addresses whether plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII...more
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers established internal procedures to evaluate employees' requests for religious and medical-based exemptions from vaccination mandates. ...more
Real World Impact: In April, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, lowering the standard that federal courts had applied for decades on discriminatory transfer claims under Title VII...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court held that an employee need only show “some harm” to maintain a Title VII discrimination claim against an employer for a lateral job transfer. Background - After nine...more
If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a lateral job transfer can – in certain circumstances – be an illegal adverse action and support a claim for a lawsuit for unlawful discrimination. This...more
For decades, employers have depended on the rule that transferring or reassigning an employee would not give rise to an actionable discrimination claim, as long as such an action did not “significantly” change an employee’s...more
Last week, on April 17, 2024, the US Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)...more
On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer may violate Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer did...more
On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court provided an opening for workers to allege employment discrimination claims regarding job transfers based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. In Muldrow v....more
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, No. 22-193, 2024 WL 1642826 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employee alleging that an involuntary lateral job transfer constituted workplace discrimination in...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis that rejected a heightened injury standard for Title VII claims based on job transfers and held that employees alleging discrimination...more
Federal Investigation Determined Grocery Subjected Employees to Sexual Harassment and Retaliation - LOS ANGELES – Sprouts Farmers Market, a national grocery chain featuring natural foods, has settled a federal charge of...more