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 October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari,[1] agreeing to hear arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a Sixth Circuit case that seeks to determine whether the...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
Employer's DEI mandate scores a win. A white guy refused to take his employer's mandatory "unconscious bias" training, and he was fired. He sued the employer for retaliation, his lawsuit was dismissed, and this week an...more
Does the First Amendment right to free speech permit an employer to hire or fire an employee based on race? On its face, the proposition may seem absurd, especially as we approach the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act...more
The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous pro-employee ruling that makes it harder for employers to defend whistleblower claims. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, the Court rejected the argument that an employer must have...more
On December 13, 2023, an Eleventh Circuit panel firmly established “but-for” causation as the Circuit’s causation standard for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation claims. Courts across the nation have adopted...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: One of the most anticipated employment cases of the term was recently argued before the United States Supreme Court. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis the Court requested the parties address the issue:...more
Earlier this year, we wrote about some of the major cases and legal developments for employers to watch in 2023. With the start of the U.S. Supreme Court's new term last month, we are back to provide insight into the next...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
Employer Permitted Racist and Homophobic Slurs, and Cut Hours of Employee Who Complained, Federal Agency Charges - TAMPA, Fla. – Neighborhood Restaurant Partners Florida, LLC, doing business as Applebee’s, violated federal...more
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which presides over federal district courts in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, recently joined several other circuit courts in determining that plaintiffs who allege same-sex...more
Legal precedent, including language from the U.S. Supreme Court, requires federal courts to take a broad view of the “but-for” causation standard for determining unlawful age discrimination in the workplace, Equal Employment...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously resolved a long-running dispute about procedure under Title VII and sent a message to employers that it is important to pay attention and act promptly when faced with a Title...more
Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (U.S. June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the charge-filing requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not jurisdictional. The case...more
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States - Fort Bend County v. Davis - has sparked conversations about whether a current or former employee must file a complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a split among federal appellate courts dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file an administrative charge with the Equal...more
Recently, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a jurisdictional question: If a plaintiff fails to exhaust her remedies by first filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that the requirement that a plaintiff exhaust his/her administrative remedies before filing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a mandatory...more
Welcome to June! As we head into the summer, the employment law world continues to heat up! We have rounded up the most recent developments impacting employers for your summer reading pleasure here....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: New decision from the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file with the EEOC or other state agencies is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, which means it can be...more
The Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the charge-filing precondition to suit of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver, not a jurisdictional bar to...more