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
Better late than never. Six months after President Trump ordered the federal government to end “illegal DEI,” the U.S. Department of Justice issued a Memorandum providing guidance on diversity-related practices that it...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
On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a joint press release announcing the release of two technical assistance documents designed to...more
On March 17, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 large law firms requesting information about their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) related employment practices. The letters express the EEOC’s suspicions...more
On March 7, 2025, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it would begin investigating four medical schools and hospitals pursuant to President Donald Trump’s...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
On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi disseminated an internal memo within the Department of Justice (DOJ). The memo, Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences, explained that the DOJ’s Civil Rights...more
Last December, Bally’s Chicago, Inc., a Delaware corporation and indirect subsidiary of Bally’s Corporation filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to raise funds in connection with the...more
The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently published a Letter and Resolution Agreement vindicating a male student we represented in a complaint against Notre Dame. As set forth in the published...more
On January 20, 2025, one of President Trump’s first actions as the president of the United States was signing an Executive Order proclaiming that the U.S. government only recognizes two sexes: male and female. The order goes...more
On January 9, 2025, a federal court in Kentucky vacated the 2024 Title IX regulations that had been adopted by the U.S. Department of Education and which have been in effect since August 1, 2024. (Tennessee v. Cardona (E.D....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
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
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 the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split over the standard to apply to Title VII discrimination cases challenging job transfers, ruling that discriminatory workplace transfers are prohibited even if...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
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the standard under which a plaintiff can proceed with a claim for a discriminatory job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of religion (as well as race, color, sex, and national origin), and it...more
Employers who allow music in the workplace should pay attention to lyrics and content. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that music with sexually derogatory and violent content played in the workplace can...more
Nine months after the United States Supreme Court's historic decision in Bostock, the Texas Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had to decide whether the interpretation of Title VII's language in protecting LGBTQ employees also...more
As one of his first actions in office, President Joe Biden has issued an executive order ensuring that last year’s US Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is applied immediately and efficiently by all federal...more