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
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, an employment discrimination lawsuit that focused on a reverse discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...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
Federal Agency Charges That the Companies Discriminated Against Employees Because of Their Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity - MOBILE, Ala. and CHICAGO – Harmony Hospitality LLC, which operates a Home2 Suites by...more
With high-profile challenges to employer diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and “reverse discrimination” claims on the rise, a case reinforcing the circuit split over whether plaintiffs from a “majority” group...more
Sexual orientation, gender identity, and race continue to be widely discussed and politicized throughout the U.S. Issues related to these protected categories also continue to arise in the workplace. The EEOC recently issued...more
In a July 28, 2023 ruling, the Seventh Circuit has signaled that Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) seeking to enforce pronoun policies can expect to face increased scrutiny. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit vacated its...more
Is it discriminatory to discipline employees for wearing #BLM face masks? When does Supervisor Karen cross the line from rude into discrimination? And join us to count down the top eight things you should never, ever say in...more
You have probably seen a lot of coronavirus news alerts lately, but as a car dealer, you already know that germs are not the only things that can cause headaches. Virus or no virus, the law is still going to change and...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following opinions: Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618; Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623; R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal...more
In a historic 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer who discriminates against an employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. 590 U. S. ____ (2020). This landmark...more
In an historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity/expression discrimination are prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Bostock v. Clayton County,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that federal law protects gay, lesbian, and transgender people from discrimination in employment. The case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, involved Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of “sex” discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Justice...more
On June 15, 2020 the United States Supreme Court handed down a momentous decision ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects gay and transgender employees from workplace discrimination. The...more
In a landmark decision for LGBTQ+ rights in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 15, 2020, that federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for being gay or transgender....more
Today, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status in the...more
Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling as to whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The...more
Employers have long known that gender stereotyping is not allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. ...more
Employers have long known that gender stereotyping is not allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. However, there has been some confusion over whether this prohibition...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Stepping into a new year always gives one a chance to reflect on the lessons and trends of the prior year. In that spirit, we are pleased to present our annual selections for the five most intriguing...more
On October 8, 2019, the United States Supreme Court heard two oral arguments in three highly anticipated cases centered on the controversial issue of whether sexual orientation and transgender status fall within the protected...more
On October 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether existing federal law prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or transgender status. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
Who's the "swing vote," the "parade of horribles," and more. I'm sorry that I haven't blogged lately, but duty called. I've missed you, dear readers! As you all knew, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in...more
The next session of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is just around the corner. On October 8, 2019, SCOTUS will hear oral argument on three closely watched cases, Bostock v. Clayton Co., Georgia, Altitude...more