How to Balance Diverse Views in the Office
Off the Clock, On the Radar: Managing Off-Duty Conduct and Workplace Impact
Navigating Employee Integration in Mergers and Acquisitions: Lessons From Pretty Woman — Hiring to Firing Podcast
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
Episode 16 | The Basics for Building Your Workforce
Protecting Trade Secrets When Facing Lawsuits or Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
Episode 138 -- Employee Relations and Engagement in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era
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
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
Do former employees have the right to sue their previous employer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination in the administration of post-employment fringe benefits? Resolving a circuit...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
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 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
At least one court says yes. True confession: When I was a little future lawyer, I was sometimes a pain. (So, Robin, you’re saying your personality hasn't changed in all these years?) When I was being especially “high...more
Fourth Circuit Stays Injunction Barring Enforcement of DEI Executive Orders On March 14, 2025, the Fourth Circuit issued an order in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Donald Trump, No. 25-1189...more
Workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs face more scrutiny than ever in light of President Trump’s recent executive orders regarding DEI policies and programs across the public and private sectors, recent...more
Federal Agency Charged Security Company with Engaging in Systemic Sex Discrimination in Hiring and Assignments - BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Security Engineers, Inc., a contract security solutions provider headquartered in...more
In Title VII actions, plaintiffs have a limited amount of time to file a charge of discrimination (or a court can dismiss the case as untimely). In the case of Wells v. Texas Tech University, the timeliness dynamic was...more
“The Hamilton decision highlights the need for employers to stay up to date on legal developments. In this one decision, the Fifth Circuit opened the door for claims that just one day earlier were not actionable. Reviewing...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
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 does not provide an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment. This decision deepens an...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Following a handful of sluggish years in terms of EEOC litigation activity, the Commission returned to form by filing 144 merit lawsuits in Fiscal Year 2023. Given that the EEOC finally secured its...more
As the workplace continues to take a new shape, the distinction between “workplace conduct” and “off duty” conduct continues to fade for many. After a recent Ninth Circuit ruling, employers must be more vigilant than ever in...more