How Employers Can Adapt to Immigration Policy Shifts
ERGs: Valuable or Vulnerable?
Key Considerations for Companies Navigating Global Remote Work: Part 1 – Immigration
Workplace Sexual Assault and Third-Party Risk: What’s the Tea in L&E?
Daily Compliance News: August 11, 2025, The Boss Doesn’t Work Edition
Nationwide FLSA Lawsuits Just Got Harder—Here’s Why - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Off the Clock, On the Radar: Managing Off-Duty Conduct and Workplace Impact
Daily Compliance News: July 22, 2025, The I-9 Hell Edition
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
(Podcast) California Employment News: Creating the Report for a Workplace Investigation – Part 4 (Featured)
California Employment News: Creating the Report for a Workplace Investigation – Part 4 (Featured)
Essential Steps to Sell Your Business
Workplace Risks Meet Holistic Legal Solutions: One-on-One with Adam Tomiak
Legal Shifts in 2025 Put Employer Non-Compete Strategies at Risk - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Podcast - How Do You Define Success?
Hiring Smarter: Best Practices for Interviews: What's the Tea in L&E?
New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast - The Law as a Force for Change
Strategic HR Insights with Kelly Mitchell
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 41: Employment & Labor Law Issues for Construction Companies with Bridget Blinn-Spears of Maynard Nexsen
While March 2020 may seem like a distant memory, courts across the country are still busy hearing cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent federal jury verdict in McCormick v. Chicago Transit Authority reminds us that...more
Can an employer be held liable for workplace harassment committed by a non-employee? The short answer is “sometimes” – but a federal appeals court just significantly narrowed this liability risk for employers in Kentucky,...more
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape the modern workplace, a growing legal trend is emerging around its use in employment decisions. From hiring algorithms to performance monitoring tools, employers are...more
As the Supreme Court prepares for its next term to begin October 6, let’s look back on all the SCOTUS cases from the past year that impacted your workplace, industry, and litigation exposure. Here’s a quick guide to 12 times...more
The Sixth Circuit in Bivens v. Zep, Inc. brushed aside the EEOC’s and several circuit court positions with respect to the standard to be used when determining an employer’s liability under Title VII for sexual harassment of...more
In Bivens v. Zep, Inc., No. 24-2109 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025), the Sixth Circuit split with the EEOC and most U.S. Courts of Appeals as to when an employer may be liable under Title VII for harassment by a non-agent (e.g.,...more
In Bivens v. ZEP, Inc., the Sixth Circuit held that an employer is not liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), for harassment by a customer unless the employer intended the harassment...more
An unsuccessful job applicant is suing Sirius XM Radio in federal court, claiming the company’s AI-powered hiring tool discriminated against him based on his race. Filed on August 4 in the Eastern District of Michigan, the...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employer will be liable for a customer’s harassment of an employee only when it intends for such harassment to occur. ...more
Filing a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can be confusing when determining who the employer is. That’s especially true in a complex corporate environment, where...more
When is an employer liable for the harassment of an employee by a non-employee? The Sixth Circuit answered this question on Friday in Bivens v. Zep, Inc., holding that Title VII imposes liability for customer (or other...more
Did the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Serv., 145 S.Ct. 1540 (2025), decided in June of this year, make it easier for employees to bring discrimination lawsuits against their employers? The...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025), making clear that an employee-plaintiff who is a member of a majority group cannot be held...more
Attorney General Pam Bondi issued guidance dated July 29, 2025, to all federal agencies and recipients of federal funding, reiterating the Trump Administration’s January directive that all programs, policies, and activities —...more
Reshaping the litigation landscape for workplace discrimination claims, last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540 (June 5, 2025), that plaintiffs bringing so-called...more
At the beginning of the second Trump administration, the President and Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated they would use the levers of government to end DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies and programs. The...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
After the White House announced that it would “deprioritize” disparate impact cases, many employers may have mistakenly concluded that disparate impact liability was no longer a concern under Title VII. However, recent...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
Earlier this month, in a long-awaited ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a straight white woman who claimed to have lost out on two positions to LGBT candidates and was also demoted in favor of them. ...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
On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “background circumstances” test previously applied by several federal circuits in “reverse discrimination” cases....more