A Deep Dive into HUD's New Guidance on AI-Driven Targeted Advertising — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Fair Lending 101 for Debt Collectors - The Consumer Finance Podcast
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
#WorkforceWednesday: COVID-19 Vaccination Policies, Worker Organizing Task Force, Whistleblowing Increases - Employment Law This Week®
Illegal or ill-mannered? Title VII meets Ms. Manners
Pregnancy In the Workplace...Hot Off the Press
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more
Key Takeaways - - The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to show additional “background...more
A unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services clarified that Title VII plaintiffs who are members of a majority group have the same standard for establishing their claim as a plaintiff who is...more
In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039 (S. Ct. June 5, 2025), the US Supreme Court unanimously dispelled the concept of “reverse” discrimination, making clear that discrimination on the basis of a protected...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the dismissal of a heterosexual woman’s Title VII claims, concluding that she was improperly subjected to a heightened prima facie standard that required her to show...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the “background circumstances” rule in “reverse” employment discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in a unanimous decision overturning...more
Legal precedent, including language from the U.S. Supreme Court, requires federal courts to take a broad view of the “but-for” causation standard for determining unlawful age discrimination in the workplace, Equal Employment...more
Employment law is full of burden-shifting, prima facie standards and evidentiary hurdles. Sometimes, even the courts apply the wrong standard at the wrong stage of a case. That appears to be what happened in the case of...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recently issued a ruling with respect to Defendants’ “compelling” exhaustion argument that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies with...more
Synopsis: In an ADEA collective action alleging that a community college discriminated on the basis of age when it announced it would no longer employ any person receiving an annuity from the State Universities Retirement...more
In an order recently issued in EEOC v Jetstream Ground Services, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-02340 (D. Colo. Sept. 29, 2015), Judge Christine Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled that the EEOC had...more
Think you've heard every cautionary workplace tale? Believe it or not, you probably haven't – the real question is, how prepared are you to handle wildly unusual complaints, extreme accommodation requests, and highly awkward...more
Last Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), which involves a claim of pregnancy discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)....more