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
A Florida state court recently held that an employer violated the Florida Civil Rights Act by failing to accommodate an employee’s off-duty, off-site medical marijuana use to treat his disabilities....more
The Supreme Court of the United States opened up the new term on October 7, 2024. The Court is currently slated to address 40 cases this term. Oral arguments will be heard for nine cases in October and an additional seven in...more
These steps could help keep you out of trouble. An employee in a safety-sensitive job who has been diagnosed with cancer is selected for a random drug test. The test result comes back positive for TCHA...more
Federally legal CBD products may, under some circumstances, cause consumers to fail drug tests. An employer’s right to terminate employee-consumers on that basis is not prohibited by federal law, including the Americans with...more
We often look to the federal judiciary as the gold standard of American jurisprudence. State courts frequently find federal opinions persuasive. Confirmation hearings for federal judges are televised. Indeed, the federal...more
Medical Marijuana Retailer Sexually Harassed Workers, Federal Agency Charged - BALTIMORE – Maryland Health Management, LLC, doing business as Nature’s Medicines, and AMMA Investment Group, LLC, will pay $175,000 and...more
Medical Marijuana Retailer Sexually Harassed Workers, Federal Agency Charges - BALTIMORE – Maryland Health Management, LLC, doing business as Nature’s Medicines, and AMMA Investment Group, LLC violated federal law when...more
Can an employer terminate the employment of a medical marijuana cardholder who tests positive after a work-related injury? A recent decision tackles this question and represents a first look at the legal issues under...more
Employment law changes and evolves. Best practice for employers is to have an experienced employment attorney review and update their employee handbook to be in compliance with labor laws. At a minimum, the following areas...more
In a recently issued trial court decision, Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics Corp., a Rhode Island Superior Court justice held that an employer could not deny employment to an applicant licensed under state law to possess and...more