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 first half of 2025 brought unprecedented changes for federal contractors seeking to comply with federal affirmative action requirements. The rescission of Executive Order 11246 via Executive Order 14173 upended decades of...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
A Deaf, Indigenous woman claims an employer’s use of a popular automated video interview platform unfairly blocked her promotion due to AI-driven biases related to her disability and race. The ACLU filed charges on March 19...more
In an important opinion for employers defending against misclassification claims, the Supreme Court has issued its first major employment law decision of the current term in EMD Sales v. Carrera, with two other marquee...more
Executive Order (E.O.) 11246 was issued by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 to combat discrimination in employment (following the then-recent passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) by requiring federal contractors and...more
In a unique, interactive session that was part of the firm’s annual In-House Counsel seminar, participants evaluated potential DEI outcomes by analyzing three fictional scenarios. With elements pulled from real-life cases,...more
A change in presidential administrations can influence federal enforcement agencies’ priorities, how they interpret laws and guidelines, and how they carry out enforcement. Consequently, the transition to the Trump...more
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently released a “fact sheet” concerning employer mandates that require employees to use wearable technologies. According to the EEOC, such requirements could violate...more
On December 19, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published a new fact sheet titled “Wearables in the Workplace: Using Wearable Technologies Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws.”...more
Federal Suit Charges Mobile Device Retailer Rescinded Job Offer After Learning About Worker’s Potential Pregnancy Complications - RENO, Nev. – Victra, the business name of ABC Phones of North Carolina and a nationwide...more
Federal Lawsuit Says Manufacturer Failed to Allow Any Exceptions to Vaccination Policy - TULSA, Okla. – AG Equipment Company, a Broken Arrow, Oklahoma compressor packaging manufacturer, violated federal law when it fired...more
Federal Agency Charges Company Failed to Rehire Former Employee Because She Previously Filed EEOC Discrimination Charge - CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Cinergy Entertainment Group, Inc., a Texas corporation operating multiple cinema...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
Federal Agency Charged Grocery Store Chain Subjected Employee to Sexual Harassment and Fired Her When She Refused to Undergo Unlawful Medical Examination - HARRISBURG, Pa. – Weis Markets, Inc., will pay $75,000 and furnish...more
Settles Federal Charges Workforce Services Provider in Southern New Mexico Failed to Grant Medical Leave and Fired Employee - SOCORRO, N.M. – Res-Care and Equus Workforce Solutions (jointly referred to as Res-Care/Equus),...more
Mattioda v. Nelson, 98 F.4th 1164 (9th Cir. 2024) - Summary: Disability-based harassment claims are available under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act....more
Settles Federal Charges That Alexandria Pharmacy Refused to Allow Pregnant Worker Emergency Medical Leave, Forcing Her to Quit - NEW ORLEANS – Pharmacy and retailer Walgreens Co. has agreed to pay $205,000 and provide...more
In Harris v. FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc., No. 23-2003, a Fifth Circuit panel vacated a $365 million punitive damages award in race discrimination and retaliation case, finding that the plaintiff Jennifer Harris (“Harris”) failed...more
What happens when an employee believes he or she is a victim of discrimination at work? Most people understand that an employee can sue their employer/company but very few understand the concept of individual liability under...more
Federal Agency Charges That Grocery Chain Subjected Employee to Sexual Harassment and Fired Her for Refusal to Cooperate with Illegal Medical Examination and Disability-Related Inquiries - HARRISBURG, Pa. – Weis Markets,...more
Settles Federal Charges Employee Was Subjected to N-Word, Did Not Accommodate Her Disability, and Then Fired Her - GREENVILLE, S.C. – Georgia-based Community Loans of America, Inc. and its subsidiary, Carolina Title Loans,...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
The Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Groff v. DeJoy (opinion here) on June 29, 2023, holding that Title VII requires an employer denying a religious accommodation to show that granting the...more
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the burden an employer must meet in denying a requested religious accommodation is “substantial” and not merely “de minimis.” Employers will now have a harder time denying religious...more
On June 29, 2023, in a unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified Title VII’s “undue hardship” standard for employers denying religious accommodations. The Court...more