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
Just days after the University of Pennsylvania's settlement with the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases involving state transgender athlete bans of girls and women competing in school sports...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025), making clear that an employee-plaintiff who is a member of a majority group cannot be held...more
Reshaping the litigation landscape for workplace discrimination claims, last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540 (June 5, 2025), that plaintiffs bringing so-called...more
The Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025 decision to revive a heterosexual woman’s discrimination suit on the basis of sexual orientation against her employer could open a floodgate of future litigation. In a unanimous ruling...more
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
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, significantly impacting how majority-group discrimination claims are evaluated under Title VII of the...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by some lower courts in what are often referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims is...more
In a widely awaited for decision, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Roberts held that a Tennessee law which prohibits certain medical treatments (puberty blockers and hormones) for transgender minors,...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that plaintiffs in the majority group within a protected class have the same burden of proof at summary judgment to demonstrate...more
Must a student with a disability prove that their school acted in “bad faith” to win a discrimination case? Until now, courts in some parts of the country said yes, requiring disabled students to meet a higher standard than...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected use of a special legal test for plaintiffs to prove illegal bias in reverse discrimination cases. ...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court settled a longtime debate among federal appellate courts regarding so-called “reverse discrimination” claims that are brought by employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more
The 2019 film “Late Night,” written by and starring Mindy Kaling, tells the story of a late-night talk show host, Katherine Newbury, played by Emma Thompson, whose all-male, all-white writing staff scrambles to add a female...more
On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court revived the employment discrimination claims of an Ohio woman who contends that she was the victim of “reverse...more
A recent Supreme Court decision clarified that discrimination claims brought by members of majority groups in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases cannot be subject to a heightened evidentiary burden. In Ames v. Ohio...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a significant question regarding class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The question...more
Earlier this month, in a long-awaited ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a straight white woman who claimed to have lost out on two positions to LGBT candidates and was also demoted in favor of them. ...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of an employee claiming that she was a victim of reverse discrimination after she was allegedly denied a promotion because she is heterosexual. In the underlying case, the...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025). The case addressed whether plaintiffs from majority groups must meet a higher evidentiary...more
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
The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on the contentious issue of reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars disparate treatment of employees on the basis of race, color, religion,...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court last Thursday held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes no additional requirements on majority-group...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, resolving a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit split in the matter of Ames v. Ohio Dep't. of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ____ (2025). The Supreme Court...more