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 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
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
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 Trump Administration’s new Executive Order on “gender ideology extremism” signals a dramatic shift in federal policy that will impact workplace policies, benefits, and compliance obligations relating to transgender...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
On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its new Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the Guidance), the first update to its Guidance in over 20 years. Among the many...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
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
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
A nurse practitioner sued her employer alleging, inter alia, a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that...more
This Insights blog addresses the aftermath of the monumental U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020) and the ongoing collision of the right to religious freedom enjoyed by...more
Federal Agency Seeks Workers Impacted by Staffing Agency’s Refusal to Place Females Due to Client Preferences - SEATTLE — Gig Harbor, Washington-based staffing agency SmartTalent violated federal law by repeatedly refusing...more
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County,140 S. Ct. 1731, 1754 (2020) that expanded the prohibition against sex discrimination under Title VII (“Title VII”) of the Civil Rights Act to include discrimination on...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
Attorney General Jeff Sessions formally reversed the federal government’s position on whether transgender workers are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, informing all U.S. Attorneys and heads of all federal...more