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
The COVID-19 pandemic brought workplace vaccination policies to the forefront, raising complex questions about religious accommodations. Over four years after the initial rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, these policies remain...more
Federal Agency Charges Healthcare Provider Refused to Accommodate Remote Employee’s Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs - RALEIGH, N.C. – Rex Healthcare, Inc., a private, non-profit healthcare provider located in Raleigh,...more
Suncakes NC, LLC, a North Carolina-based company, and Suncakes, LLC, a Texas-based company doing business as IHOP (collectively “Suncakes”), will pay $40,000 and provide other relief to settle a religious discrimination and...more
Federal Lawsuit Says Manufacturer Failed to Allow Any Exceptions to Vaccination Policy - TULSA, Okla. – AG Equipment Company, a Broken Arrow, Oklahoma compressor packaging manufacturer, violated federal law when it fired...more
How should an employer react if an employee claims that mandatory anti-discrimination training conflicts with the employee’s religious beliefs? Two recent EEOC decisions shed some light on this question. In both cases, the...more
EEOC Investigation Finds Clinic Refused to Provide Reasonable Accommodation and Discharged Employee Because of Religious Beliefs - SEATTLE – Passages Family Support, a non-profit organization with a clinic in Spokane,...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of religion (as well as race, color, sex, and national origin), and it...more
In last term’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly increased employers’ obligation to consider religious exemption requests under Title VII. Rather than the previous de minimus burden standard,...more
In Part One of this two-part bulletin, we explored the expansive meaning of religious beliefs entitled to an accommodation under Title VII and the reluctance of courts to second guess whether a belief is “religious” in...more
Consider this: an employee refuses to accept Sunday shifts because, under his religion, that day is devoted to worship and rest. Is his employer legally required to accommodate him? For decades, the answer was easy....more
In the Public Interest is excited to continue our miniseries examining landmark decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. The fourth episode examines the Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, a case centered...more
The U.S Supreme Court issued an opinion in Groff v. DeJoy redefining an employer’s obligations for religious accommodations under Title VII. The Court strayed away from the almost five-decade standard previously used and...more
Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) requires employers to accommodate any employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless accommodation would result in an undue hardship. Historically, denial of...more
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously last month in favor of an evangelical Christian postal worker who refused to work on Sundays due to Sabbath observance....more
In a case decided last month, the U.S. Supreme Court made it more difficult for employers to deny employees’ requests for accommodations for their religious practices, rejecting the understanding of Title VII (the fundamental...more
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which heightened the burden that employers bear in proving that an employee’s request for a religious...more
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has “clarified” the test under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that employers and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have relied upon for more than 46 years, making it easier for...more
In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment...more
Employers evaluating religious accommodations under Title VII are now required to strike a new balance due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent clarification of what constitutes an “undue hardship.” Employers should promptly...more
On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying the standard employers must apply in considering an employee’s religious accommodation request under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Groff v. DeJoy,...more
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy clarified employers’ obligations when accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). As a result of this...more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the circumstances under which an employer may deny a request for a religious accommodation under Title VII. Specifically, in Groff v. DeJoy, the Court held...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, requires employers with 15 or more employees to accommodate the sincerely held...more
On June 30, 2023, the United States Supreme Court ended its October 2022 term. Many of the Court’s decisions from this past term are likely to impact employers of all sizes. Accordingly, this post is the first in a limited...more