Legal Shifts in 2025 Put Employer Non-Compete Strategies at Risk - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Workplace ICE Raids Are Surging—Here’s How Employers Can Prepare - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: Gathering Information in a Workplace Investigation – Part 2 (Featured)
Handling References and Referrals While Safeguarding Your Business
Navigating the Maze: eDiscovery Essentials for Employers — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Multijurisdictional Employers, Part 1: Independent Contractors vs. Employees
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 42: Non-Compete Agreements with Mitchell Greggs of Maynard Nexsen
Creativity and Compliance: Innovating Ethics - Creativity in Corporate Compliance with Katie Lawler
Culture Crafters: Preventing and Fixing a Cultural Disconnect
DE Talk | Using Employment Networks to Connect with Individuals with Disabilities in an Ever-Changing Workforce
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 33: Generations in the Workplace with Caroline Warner of The South Carolina Power Team, Part 1
Managing Employee Compliance in Highly Regulated Industries — Hiring to Firing Podcast
The Labor Law Insider: Recent U.S. Supreme Court, NLRB Decisions Highlight Labor Issues in Higher Education
Podcast - The Latest on Antitrust and Non-Compete Agreements in Healthcare
Protecting Trade Secrets When Facing Lawsuits or Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
Episode 138 -- Employee Relations and Engagement in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era
Day 19 of One Month to More Effective Continuous Improvement-Use of Social Media for Continuous Improvement
On June 27, 2025, Director of the US Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Catherine Eschbach issued a letter to federal contractors asking them to volunteer information on their efforts...more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida that a retired employee who could no longer hold or seek to hold her job could not sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act...more
The drama of “It Ends With Us” has jumped from the book to the big screen to a real-life legal battle that offers a sharp reminder of how retaliation and digital misconduct can derail even the most powerful players in any...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that members of a majority group are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail...more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another important decision in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida. This decision follows on the heels of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services...more
Recently, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that lowered the bar for employees seeking to sue their employer. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a heterosexual white woman claimed that she suffered discrimination...more
In, Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act, holding that Title I’s employment discrimination provisions do not apply to individuals who are...more
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a factfinder could conclude that an employer’s six-month delay during the ADA interactive process could amount to a failure to...more
On June 20, 2025, in Stanley v. City of Sanford, the United States Supreme Court concluded that a retiree who could no longer work because of a disability is not a “qualified individual” entitled to protection under Title I...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court in Kansas—Spears v. Thermo Fisher Scientific—ruled that a pay equity analysis conducted primarily for business purposes was not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work...more
The 2019 film “Late Night,” written by and starring Mindy Kaling, tells the story of a late-night talk show host, Katherine Newbury, played by Emma Thompson, whose all-male, all-white writing staff scrambles to add a female...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Sixth Circuit’s rule, which required plaintiffs of a majority group to satisfy an additional burden as part of establishing a prima facie case of Title...more
A recent Supreme Court decision clarified that discrimination claims brought by members of majority groups in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases cannot be subject to a heightened evidentiary burden. In Ames v. Ohio...more
In this featured episode of California Employment News, Lizbeth (Beth) West and Meagan Bainbridge present part two of the Workplace Investigation Series, discussing best practices for collecting information during a workplace...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court last Thursday held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes no additional requirements on majority-group...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
In a case filed by a heterosexual woman claiming she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that she should not be required to meet a higher standard to prove...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark, unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) on June 5, 2025, fundamentally altering the landscape for “reverse discrimination” claims under...more
Hune 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in the case of Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, that “the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a...more
Today, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously held that in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not...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 Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, striking down the “background circumstances” requirement in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases. The Court held...more
In Part 2 of our series, we’ll look at who forms part of an investigation team, how location affects which laws apply to an investigation, notification and timing requirements. (Part 1 covers the definition of ‘workplace’...more
In today’s global workplace, managing sexual harassment complaints is no longer a matter confined to a single jurisdiction. As companies expand across borders, their legal obligations become increasingly complex....more