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
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
Don't expect the EEOC to appeal. In April 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. The Enforcement Guidance addressed, among other things, harassment...more
Many K-12 and institutes of higher education are concerned about the potential threat to their federal funding given recent changes to the way the government is interpreting existing federal law to achieve certain policy...more
On Feb. 5, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” The Executive Order states that “[i]n recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to...more
In the two weeks since President Trump took office, he has issued numerous orders, many of which affect educational institutions. The following summarizes the most recent executive orders and directives affecting our...more
Orders that it is the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth. Administration will take all appropriate action...more
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (Defending Women EO). The Defending Women...more
On January 20th, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Trust to the Federal Government.” The executive order included provisions for the...more
It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. It is the Administration’s position that sexes are not interchangeable and that “sex” is not a “synonym for and does not include the term ‘gender...more
The Trump Administration’s new Executive Order on “gender ideology extremism” signals a dramatic shift in federal policy that will impact workplace policies, benefits, and compliance obligations relating to transgender...more
On January 9, 2025, a federal district court in Kentucky issued a decision that blocks the Biden administration’s attempt to change the definition of “sex” in Title IX regulations and enforcement....more
The Biden Administration’s April 2024 changes to Title IX regulations were struck down in a court ruling that applies nationwide. State of Tennessee v. Cardona, No. 2: 24-072-DCR (E.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2025). The Kentucky federal...more
Federal Agency Charges Fast Food Companies Subjected Transgender Manager to Misgendering and Deadnaming and Fired Him and Co-Workers for Complaining - CLARKSTON, Mich. – Five related entities operating Culver’s restaurants...more
Please join us in-person or virtually for Nelson Mullins' LGBTQ+ Affinity & Ally Group's 6th Annual Pride Seminar. Lunch will be provided to those attending in-person. CLE credits will be offered for select states. We...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
A federal appeals court recently held that an employer’s health insurance plan wrongly excluded coverage for gender-affirming care in violation of federal civil rights law – offering a warning to employers across the country...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
On July 31, 2023, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals revived a Christian teacher’s religious discrimination lawsuit over his refusal to refer to transgender students by their names and pronouns with which they identified. ...more
In recent years, courts have ruled upon a growing number of cases arising from delivery of and payment for gender affirming care. At the same time, state legislatures have passed a variety of laws aimed at such services. ...more
Employers should review their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and anti-discrimination policies as federal and state laws protecting transgender workers continue to take shape. Earlier this month, the Equal Employment...more
As employers strive to create inclusive and compliant workplaces, you should note that using an employee’s requested pronouns not only conveys respect but also helps you stay in compliance with anti-discrimination laws. In...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
In neighboring states last week, the federal courts issued two decisions affirming the rights of transgender students and athletes. In Connecticut, the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a...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