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
Jorge Hernandez-Toraño Talks About the Importance of Moving the Needle Forward for Hispanics
Do former employees have the right to sue their previous employer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination in the administration of post-employment fringe benefits? Resolving a circuit...more
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on January 17, 2025, in A.J.T. by and through A.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 279, 96 F.4th 1058 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. granted sub nom. A.J.T. v....more
After the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, on January 30 a federal district court denied dueling motions for summary judgment filed by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, the U.S. Postal Service, and former Postal...more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the threshold for employees to demonstrate discrimination under Title VII, the Sixth Circuit has expanded the scope of what employers...more
Mattioda v. Nelson, 98 F.4th 1164 (9th Cir. 2024) - Summary: Disability-based harassment claims are available under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act....more
Generally, employers cannot discriminate against employees because of the employee’s disability. There are several laws that protect against disability-based discrimination, including: the Americans with Disabilities Act...more
A recent Statement of Interest filed earlier this week by the Department of Justice in a federal prisoner lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia should serve as an important reminder...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
Question: Do employers need to provide a space for employees to worship and/or pray in the office? The short answer is: Maybe. You must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral...more
The Supreme Court just began a new term, and we’re watching several cases that will likely have a big impact on the workplace. Specifically, the Court will weigh in on whether someone can “test” violations of federal...more
Question: Do employers need to provide a space for employees to worship and/or pray in the office? Answer: The short answer is: Maybe. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious, ethical,...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
On June 29, 2023, in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Groff v. DeJoy Postmaster General, clarifying an employer’s obligations to accommodate employees’ religious practices....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
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy that effectively made it easier for employees to secure religious-based accommodations in the workplace. Prior to DeJoy, an employer could...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 upended the standard for the accommodation of employee religious beliefs and practices that have been relied upon by employers since 1977. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of...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