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
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
As the academic year is now wrapping up, we hope that the final weeks of school have been relatively stress free, and that our clients are now looking forward to some slower summer days. Here at Franczek, we have continued to...more
Within the last two months, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the armed services have followed Trump Administration directives to narrow or eliminate protections for transgender individuals....more
This is part one of a series of executive orders related to health care. Transgender Care - Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation...more
On February 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which aims to prohibit transgender women and girls from participating in female sports across all educational...more
In its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees based on their...more
“The rock and the hard place.” How often do employers find themselves here? If employers have LGBTQ employees in certain states, they are now bumping up against the “rock” of federal laws, like Title VII and Title IX, and the...more
Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which clarified the standard for undue hardship in religious accommodation cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a federal district court in Indiana...more
On April 19, 2024, the Biden Administration released its long-awaited overhaul of the Title IX regulations governing investigations of alleged sexual misconduct and sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs....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
This Insights blog addresses the aftermath of the monumental U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020) and the ongoing collision of the right to religious freedom enjoyed by...more
On December 5, 2022, the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina held that the North Carolina State Health Plan (NCSHP) constitutes a “Health Program or Activity” under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In so...more
Refusing to weigh in on the impact of a plaintiff’s failure to verify her discrimination charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Supreme Court lets stand the lower court’s conclusion...more
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County,140 S. Ct. 1731, 1754 (2020) that expanded the prohibition against sex discrimination under Title VII (“Title VII”) of the Civil Rights Act to include discrimination on...more
On the one year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the EEOC has issued new guidance to clarify whether employers can segregate workplace restrooms by gender or sex. While not law, this...more
Join Hinshaw and the LGBTQ+ Lawyers Association of Los Angeles on June 23, 2021, as we commemorate June Pride Month with a webinar featuring practical guidance on LGBTQ+ employment and workplace issues. This one-hour CLE...more
We have been speculating for quite some time now about what the U.S. Supreme Court will do with Title IX after its decision last term in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. The landmark Bostock decision held that Title VII of...more
As one of his first actions in office, President Joe Biden has issued an executive order ensuring that last year’s US Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is applied immediately and efficiently by all federal...more
In this episode, recorded on Sept. 14, Akin Gump Supreme Court and appellate practice co-head Pratik Shah returns to review the 2019 Supreme Court Term and preview the big cases and topics in the October 2020 Term. Among...more
Please join Nelson Mullins and LGBTQ+ leaders as we kick-off Atlanta Pride weekend with an online discussion of the legal and political battles ahead in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision and rethinking...more
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia marks a turning point and milestone victory for the LGBTQ+ community. The decision will impact the fight to end discrimination based on gender...more
In light of his Supreme Court win in June. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has revived a Title VII lawsuit filed by Gerald Bostock, who had sued Clayton County, Georgia, alleging that the county terminated...more
A New York court has restored anti-discrimination protections for transgender patients under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Walker et al. v. Azar et al., No. 20-cv-2834 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020). Section 1557 of the ACA...more
Supreme Court decisions are often the most challenging pieces of legal guidance to understand. They are rarely straightforward and usually contain so much analysis that it becomes hard to get to the bottom of what was...more