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, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the split among federal circuits and held that the same standard used to evaluate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to all...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
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
In Retzios v. Epic Systems Corp., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal brought by the plaintiff, a former employee of Epic, who was fired after she refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The...more
A Deaf, Indigenous woman claims an employer’s use of a popular automated video interview platform unfairly blocked her promotion due to AI-driven biases related to her disability and race. The ACLU filed charges on March 19...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
Reverberations from the Trump administration’s recent executive order (EO) denouncing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices intensified Friday when a federal judge in Baltimore issued a nationwide preliminary...more
Few federal regulations over the past five years have produced more needless concern by stakeholders than the independent contractor rules under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) issued by the different...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
Federal Agency Charged Employee Was Forced to Resign After She Was Told to Not Hire Women, Blacks and Older Workers for Construction Industry Jobs - MINNEAPOLIS – TKO Construction Services, a staffing company that provides...more
Settles Federal Suit Company Refused to Hire Women for Driver and Warehouse Positions - MIAMI – Kane’s Furniture, LLC, a Florida-based furniture retail company, will pay $1,482,748.00 in monetary relief and provide...more
Employment discrimination in the workplace is alive and well. Indeed, according to Monster’s recent Workplace Discrimination Poll, only 9% of workers claim to have NOT faced some form of workplace discrimination. There have...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case in which a female heterosexual employee claimed an Ohio state agency discriminated against her in favor of employees who identify as LGBTQ+. The case, Ames v....more
Federal Lawsuit Charges Company Failed to Hire Pregnant Woman - DALLAS – Dallas Barber and Stylist College, Inc., which operates a barber shop and school in Dallas, violated federal civil rights law when it failed to hire...more
A North Carolina restaurant franchisee has agreed to pay $40,000 and take other corrective measures to settle a religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC after being accused of denying a cook’s...more
In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that transferring an employee to a new position with the same rank and pay may constitute an adverse action under Title VII. The recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis,...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...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
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that to sustain a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), plaintiffs do...more
Federal Agency Charges That the Companies Discriminated Against Employees Because of Their Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity - MOBILE, Ala. and CHICAGO – Harmony Hospitality LLC, which operates a Home2 Suites by...more
In a recent decision, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining whether an adverse employment action is a sufficient basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII of the...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
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, 601 U.S. _____ (2024), which addressed the appropriate standard for evaluating whether a job transfer – even where the...more
An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be...more