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
In a widely awaited for decision, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Roberts held that a Tennessee law which prohibits certain medical treatments (puberty blockers and hormones) for transgender minors,...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, an employment discrimination lawsuit that focused on a reverse discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (Defending Women EO). The Defending Women...more
On January 20th, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Trust to the Federal Government.” The executive order included provisions for the...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 district court in Kentucky issued a decision that blocks the Biden administration’s attempt to change the definition of “sex” in Title IX regulations and enforcement....more
On December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a Title VII case out of the Eighth Circuit. The petitioner, Sergeant Jatonya Muldrow of the St. Louis Police Department, alleged sex...more
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action in higher education in June 2023, effectively foreclosing the consideration of race in and of itself in that context. Although the Court’s decision was...more
In recent years, courts have ruled upon a growing number of cases arising from delivery of and payment for gender affirming care. At the same time, state legislatures have passed a variety of laws aimed at such services. ...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Toomey v. Arizona, No. 19-CV-0035, 2020 WL 2465707 (D. Ariz. May 12, 2020), a Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona recommended the certification of class claims...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On December 23, 2019, District Judge Rosemary Marquez ruled, in connection with a motion to dismiss, that Title VII does protect discrimination based on a person’s transgender status, and that a health...more
This week the United States Supreme Court commenced its 2019-2020 term, during which it will examine significant questions related to the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yesterday, on October 8th, the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Toomey v. U of Arizona, No. 19-35 (D. Ar. June 24, 2019), the Magistrate Judge determined on a motion to dismiss that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on a person’s transgender status. ...more
On May 30, 2017, on the heels of the Seventh Circuit’s ground-breaking en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech. College holding that sexual orientation is a protected trait under Title VII, a unanimous three-judge panel of...more