Protect Yourself and Your Business with Indemnification Understanding
Herb Stapleton's FBI Experience Proves to be Asset to Dinsmore's Corporate Team
Former FBI Executive and Cybersecurity Leader Herbert Stapleton Joins Dinsmore’s National Corporate Practice
No Password Required: Former Lead Attorney at U.S. Cyber Command, Cyber Law Strategist, and Appreciator of ‘Mad Men’ Hats
A Counterintuitive Approach to Winning Without Litigation: One-on-One with Haley Morrison
Lawyers Beware: There Could Be Serious Ethics Issues With The New AI Browsers
LathamTECH in Focus: Tech Deals: The Emerging Focus of FDI Regulators?
Fox on Podcasting: Harnessing the Power of Niche
Navigating Employee Integration in Mergers and Acquisitions: Lessons From Pretty Woman — Hiring to Firing Podcast
FCPA Compliance Report: Stay the Course: Ellen Lafferty on Navigating Anti-Corruption Compliance in 2025
Multijurisdictional Employers, P2: 2025 State-by-State Updates on Non-Compete/Non-Solicitation Agts
6 Takeaways | From Tension to Teamwork: Real Strategies for Legal Collaboration
Hsu Untied interview with David Cohen, General Counsel at Infinite Athlete
Hsu Untied interview with Brad Waugh, General Counsel at TP-Link
Compliance Tip of the Day – New FCPA Enforcement Memo – What Does it Mean?
Hsu Untied interview with D'Lonra Ellis, CLO of Oakland A's
Your Guide to Dealing with Subpoenas Effectively
Episode 371 -- DOJ's New Corporate Enforcement Program
Shout Outs and Rants: Episode 153, The CW 25 Edition
Regulatory Ramblings: Episode 68 - Why Geopolitical Risk Matters to Compliance and Legal Staff with Mark Nuttal and Chad Olsen
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, resolving a long-standing split among federal courts and clarifying the evidentiary standard for Title...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that challenges the heightened evidentiary burden imposed on majority-group plaintiffs in Title VII...more
A few months ago, we published an alert noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The case addresses whether plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII...more
Employers often place employees on paid administrative leave while they investigate accusations of employee misconduct or make decisions regarding the employees’ employment. Traditionally, most federal courts agreed that this...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
If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employee challenging a job transfer in an unlawful employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must show that the...more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, there has been in increase in litigation challenging employers’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies and practices. In one recent...more
To prevail on a discrimination claim under Title VII and similar anti-discrimination laws, the employee bringing suit must prove that he or she suffered an “adverse employment action” because of a legally protected...more
The Supreme Court may soon clarify whether an employer’s decision to transfer an employee to a lateral job – with no change in pay or benefits – violates federal civil rights law if it’s done for discriminatory reasons....more
From the classroom to the boardroom, attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) gained significant momentum in 2023. Bolstered by their victory at the Supreme Court in the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) cases,...more
On December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri—a potentially pivotal case concerning whether Title VII requires plaintiffs to establish a...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’s blockbuster decisions last term dominated the headlines – and many rulings will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an...more
In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment...more
On April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Groff v. DeJoy, a case raising the issue of how great a burden an employer must bear in order to accommodate an employee’s religious belief or practices....more
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment and labor law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal over the last month....more
Employment litigators and Constitutional Law attorneys alike should pay close attention to the United States Supreme Court’s calendar, as the Court recently agreed to take up a case that has the potential to change the way...more
In a historic move, both chambers of Congress have approved legislation protecting the right of same-sex couples to get married, and President Biden is expected to quickly sign the bill into law. The U.S. House of...more
Employers likely have questions about abortion-related employment protections and healthcare benefits after Friday’s SCOTUS controversial decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Given the ruling, people in states with strict...more
On September 23, 2020, a panel of Skadden attorneys hosted a webinar entitled “Key Supreme Court Cases From the 2019-20 Term and a Look Ahead to the 2020-21 Term.” Panelists Julie Bédard, Boris Bershteyn, Jocelyn E. Strauber...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
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, covered employers may not...more
On Monday, June 15, 2020, the US Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender, gay and lesbian employees (and prospective employees) from workplace...more
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition of sex discrimination encompasses discrimination against gay and transgender individuals. Justice Neil...more