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
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
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the United States Supreme Court held that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.” With its decision, however, the Supreme Court...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019-20 term is receiving substantial attention for cases involving signature initiatives of President Donald Trump’s administration. But the Court also maintains an extensive docket directly relevant...more
This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court heard three employment cases that collectively ask: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of…sex,” encompass discrimination based...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a trio of cases asking whether federal law protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination. Currently, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for...more
On October 8, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument on one core question: does the prohibition on discrimination “because of...sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include...more
If there has been one constant in employment law over the last generation, it is change. The forecast for 2019 is no different. In Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Texas Legislature, employers can expect developments that...more
As members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community (LGBT+) are increasingly open at work about their identities, circuit courts are recognizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects them from...more
In this episode of The Proskauer Brief, senior counsel Harris Mufson and associate Laura Fant discuss the latest developments in Title VII. We will discuss the two recent circuit court decisions concerning the scope of sex...more
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in Zarda v. Altitude Express and held that Title VII provides protection from discrimination and harassment because of an individual’s sexual orientation. The...more
On February 26, 2018, the Federal appellate court covering New York State ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The case is Zarda v....more
Courts have disagreed on whether an employer discriminating against an employee based upon their sexual orientation violates federal anti-discrimination laws. Yesterday’s ruling by a New York federal appeals court means this...more
In a bit of a surprise move, the U.S. Supreme Court today passed on an opportunity to provide some long-awaited clarity on the interplay between sexual orientation and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Evans v....more
The Second Circuit has denied a plaintiff’s request to rehear argument en banc (that is, before all of the court’s judges) in a case alleging that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on...more
In July 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") published a guidance titled What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers, which took the position that employment...more
As we reported a few months ago in a previous article, “7th Circuit Rehears Hively Case”, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to rehear the case of Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, on the issue of whether Title...more
We previously discussed the conflict between a Second Circuit panel’s holding in April that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the Seventh Circuit’s...more
As we observed in a recent post on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College extending Title VII to sexual orientation claims, the Supreme Court will probably have to resolve the disagreement...more
In a landmark en banc decision rejecting its earlier panel ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit became the first federal appellate court to hold that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits...more
The stage has been set for the Supreme Court to consider whether sexual orientation is protected sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Sitting en banc last week, the Seventh Circuit...more
On April 4, 2017, an en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, the Seventh Circuit became the first federal Court of Appeals to hold that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on...more
On Tuesday, the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition against sex discrimination also includes protections against employees being discriminated against...more
On April 4, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin), sitting en banc, handed down what is being called a monumental decision in the development of legal...more
Federal law protects applicants and employees from negative treatment in connection with their employment, where that negative treatment is based on a protected characteristic. Traditionally, courts have interpreted the...more
Federal law—specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on a number of protected characteristics, including sex, race, national origin, and religion....more