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
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
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
The United States Supreme Court recently settled a circuit split concerning when an involuntary lateral transfer may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court’s opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a closely watched employment discrimination case. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Court reversed the Eighth...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employee challenging a job transfer in an unlawful employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must show that the...more
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the United States Supreme Court held that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.” With its decision, however, the Supreme Court...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") unanimously held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that federal courts may be able to hear claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title...more
As members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community (LGBT+) are increasingly open at work about their identities, circuit courts are recognizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects them from...more
The stage has been set for the Supreme Court to consider whether sexual orientation is protected sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Sitting en banc last week, the Seventh Circuit...more
On Tuesday, the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition against sex discrimination also includes protections against employees being discriminated against...more
On April 4, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin), sitting en banc, handed down what is being called a monumental decision in the development of legal...more
Federal law protects applicants and employees from negative treatment in connection with their employment, where that negative treatment is based on a protected characteristic. Traditionally, courts have interpreted the...more