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
Do former employees have the right to sue their previous employer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination in the administration of post-employment fringe benefits? Resolving a circuit...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more
The 2019 film “Late Night,” written by and starring Mindy Kaling, tells the story of a late-night talk show host, Katherine Newbury, played by Emma Thompson, whose all-male, all-white writing staff scrambles to add a female...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
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court last Thursday held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes no additional requirements on majority-group...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of petitioner, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who commenced a reverse discrimination case against her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth...more
Workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs face more scrutiny than ever in light of President Trump’s recent executive orders regarding DEI policies and programs across the public and private sectors, recent...more
Federal Agency Charged Security Company with Engaging in Systemic Sex Discrimination in Hiring and Assignments - BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Security Engineers, Inc., a contract security solutions provider headquartered in...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
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
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 does not provide an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment. This decision deepens an...more
There has been a lot of talk about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). So, where are we now? What do you need to know? This newsletter provides a snapshot of what it took to get the PWFA and its regulations finalized,...more
INTRODUCTION - This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2023 (hereafter “Report”), our thirteenth annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...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
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that an employee alleging a discriminatory job transfer need only show “some injury” respecting their employment terms or conditions, rather than a...more
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what protections Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides to employees who claim they were the victims of a discriminatory transfer....more
The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework used to evaluate employment discrimination claims may not be permanently cast aside, but a recent decision reminds us that it is not the only means through which employees can...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh has spoken, and employers that once relied exclusively on McDonnell Douglas might need to rethink their litigation strategy in employment-discrimination cases. On December 12,...more
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a key case involving the definition of an “adverse employment action” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the Court...more
Employers have a legal duty to ensure a safe, healthy workplace and to pay employees fairly for their work. This includes an obligation to treat employees fairly and respect their individual differences. When an employer’s...more
State and federal laws impose a duty on employers to respect employees’ rights and provide them with certain benefits. However, because employment discrimination claims and other employment disputes often involve a mix of...more
On August 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, abandoned a decades-old interpretation that discrimination must be related to an “ultimate employment...more
Recently, the Fifth Circuit overturned decades-old precedent requiring that plaintiffs suffer an “ultimate employment decision” (such as actions relating to hiring, firing, leave, or pay) in order to plead a claim under Title...more
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments in the federal courts of appeal in the last month. Fifth Circuit Expands Scope of Actionable Claims Under Title VII....more
Executive Summary: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) recently held that Title VII plaintiffs can show they were subjected to an adverse employment action...more