Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Compliance Clarity for Federal Contractors with Joan Moore and Mim Munzel of Arbor Consulting Group
Great Women in Compliance: LATAM Compliance Update with Alejandra Montenegro Almonte
From the Editor’s Desk: Compliance Week’s Insights and Reflections from July to August 2025
Daily Compliance News: July 31, 2025. The Forgotten Generation Edition
Regulatory Ramblings: Episode 74 - Global Women in AI/Corporate Director Liability: Discretionary, Not Fiduciary with Tram Anh Nguyen and Marc I. Steinberg
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
When DEI Meets the FCA: What Employers Need to Know About the DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative
Constangy Clips Ep. 11 - Summer Interns and Short-Term Workers: 3 Tips for Managing Seasonal Hires
Regulatory Ramblings: Episode 72 - Cultural Roots, Belonging, and the Fear of Change: What’s Next for Inclusion?
Work this Way: An Employment Law Video Podcast | Episode 49: Building Culture by Investing in People with Silvia King of Southern First Bank
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 48: Opportunities & Risks with Artificial Intelligence in HR with Chingwei Shieh of GE Power
Law Firm ERGs Under Scrutiny: Navigating Compliance, Risk, and Culture - On Record PR
Amend (Don’t End) DEI: What SHRM’s BEAM Framework Means for Law Firms - On Record PR
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 47: Coaching Leaders & Building Culture with Robyn Knox of The HR Business Connect
How Modern Workplaces Navigate Generational Shifts: One-on-One with Jeff Landes
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 46: The 2025 Greenville SHRM Conference with Tyler Clark and Brittany Goforth of GSHRM
100 Days In: What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week® - #WorkforceWednesday®
Non-Competes Eased, Anti-DEI Rule Blocked, Contractor Rule in Limbo - Employment Law This Week® - #WorkforceWednesday®
Clocking in with PilieroMazza: Latest Developments on DEI Executive Order and Action Items before April 21 Deadline
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 49 - The Depression Episode
On June 5, 2025, in a 9-0 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that members of a “majority group” do not have to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a...more
On 5 June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that, in order to establish a Title VII claim, a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority group” is not required to show “background...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of petitioner, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who commenced a reverse discrimination case against her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs bringing discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) cannot be required to satisfy a heightened evidentiary...more
What You Need to Know: Equal Protection Under Title VII: On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they are in a...more
The United States Supreme Court has held that the evidentiary standards for “reverse discrimination” claims under federal employment law must be the same as those set for claims brought by members of minority groups....more
As widely expected, the Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services confirmed that a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination under Title VII cannot be held to a different,...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting the “background circumstances” requirement multiple circuit courts of appeals have applied to Title...more
The concept of adverse impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) is widely misunderstood. Adverse impact occurs when a seemingly neutral employment practice disproportionately (i.e. statistically) screens out...more
Within hours of taking office for a second term, President Trump issued a flurry of executive orders and actions on topics ranging from immigration and climate change to revoking DEI mandates. While many of these actions are...more
How prepared is your organization? Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies have faced increased...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the threshold for employees to demonstrate discrimination under Title VII, the Sixth Circuit has expanded the scope of what employers...more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more
When transferring an employee or making changes to their job duties, employers now face an increased risk of claims under Title VII. On April 17, the US Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs alleging discrimination...more
In January 2024, we reported on a significant case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, which was then pending before the United States Supreme Court. On April 17, 2024, the Court issued its decision in this...more
The Supreme Court made it easier for claimants to assert discrimination claims under Title VII in its April 17 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, et al. Previously, courts required a plaintiff to show that a workplace...more
If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more
Can an employee sue under Title VII to challenge a lateral transfer, even if the transfer does not result in a loss of pay? According to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the answer is: Yes....more
Last week, on April 17, 2024, the US Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)...more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, 601 U.S. _____ (2024), which addressed the appropriate standard for evaluating whether a job transfer – even where the...more
Title VII, the federal standard for workplace discrimination cases, prohibits discrimination against individuals with respect to their “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” based on the individual’s...more
The Court's decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis requires plaintiffs to prove "some injury" respecting employment terms or conditions in discrimination cases....more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al. Reversing the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the unanimous Court held...more
On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer may violate Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer did...more