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
“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
In an effort to embrace diversity and inclusion, many employers established Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The look of these programs varied from company to company; however, many of the programs...more
On October 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Case No. 23-1039) to decide whether plaintiffs who are members of historically majority communities asserting...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
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
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
Recently, the United States Supreme Court unanimously determined that under certain circumstances, an intra-company job transfer can form the basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII. This opinion alters the legal...more
The Court's decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis requires plaintiffs to prove "some injury" respecting employment terms or conditions in discrimination cases....more
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis held that an employee who claimed she was involuntarily transferred to another position because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of...more
One of the decisions avid Supreme Court watchers (yes, aka employment law nerds) have been waiting for was Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri....more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court decided Muldrow v. St. Louis, No. 22‑193, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory job transfers that cause “some harm” with respect to the terms,...more
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for employees who are involuntarily transferred to a lateral position to pursue discrimination claims, even when they retain the same pay, benefits...more
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that discriminatory job transfers under Title VII require a showing of “harm” relating to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but...more
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that allegedly discriminatory job transfers are actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, so long as the transfer caused “some harm” to...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion on Wednesday, April 17, 2024, that will make it easier for employees to pursue discrimination claims against their employers based on job transfers or other...more
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, must show only that the...more