Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Reverse Discrimination in the Workplace with Jennie Cluverius and Fay Edwards of Maynard Nexsen
New DOJ Memo Warns Employers: Rethink DEI Programs Now - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Disparate Impact & Enforcement Rollbacks: What’s the Tea in L&E?
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 48: Opportunities & Risks with Artificial Intelligence in HR with Chingwei Shieh of GE Power
DOL Restructures: OFCCP on the Chopping Block as Opinion Letters Expand - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: Gathering Information in a Workplace Investigation – Part 2 (Featured)
Employees Who Contradict The Company's Mission: What's the Tea in L&E?
Abortion Protections Struck Down, LGBTQ Harassment Guidance Vacated, EEO-1 Reporting Opens - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Law Firm ERGs Under Scrutiny: Navigating Compliance, Risk, and Culture - On Record PR
(Podcast) California Employment News: Starting a Workplace Investigation – Part 1 (Featured)
California Employment News: Starting a Workplace Investigation – Part 1 (Featured)
New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
The Changing Landscape of EEOC Enforcement and Disparate Impact
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 44: Conducting Effective Workplace Investigations with Kimberly Hewitt and Antwan Lofton of Duke University
The Evolution of Equal Pay: Lessons From 9 to 5 — Hiring to Firing Podcast
A Retaliation Refresher: What's the Tea in L&E?
California Employment News: Fair Chance Act – A Brief Overview of Employment Criminal Background Checks
AI in Employment: Navigating the Legal Landscape with Lessons from I, Robot — The Good Bot Podcast
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) Update
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
For years, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and multiple federal appellate circuits have agreed on the legal standard for proving liability for sexual or other harassment by a third party such as a vendor or...more
Are the days numbered for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) ability to permit plaintiffs to eschew the administrative process by issuing Notice of Right to Sue letters “on request” prior to 180 days?...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 U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that Title VII does not impose a heightened or different burden of proof for majority-group plaintiffs. Simply put, “reverse discrimination” Title VII claims...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 8, 2025, clarified the scope of “marital status” discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). In Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, et al., the Second...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, that individuals who have already retired are generally not considered “qualified individuals” eligible to assert claims under the Americans...more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, addressing the scope of protections available to retired workers under Title I of the Americans with...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on June 5, 2025, that majority group plaintiffs are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard of showing “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of...more
The Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025 decision to revive a heterosexual woman’s discrimination suit on the basis of sexual orientation against her employer could open a floodgate of future litigation. In a unanimous ruling...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that courts may not impose heightened evidentiary requirements on Title VII plaintiffs simply because...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—in the midst of heightened scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives triggered by executive orders issued by President Trump as well as various federal agency guidance—the Supreme Court...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 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 March, the U.S. Supreme Court majority declined to review a decision affirming summary judgment for an employer in a discrimination case. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, noting that he...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, the Supreme Court eliminated the higher standard majority-group plaintiffs had to meet in Title VII discrimination cases. Traditionally, a Title VII plaintiff must show they are a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on the contentious issue of reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars disparate treatment of employees on the basis of race, color, religion,...more
On May 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a significant ruling in State of Texas v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (No. 2:24-cv-00173), declaring that the EEOC’s 2024 Guidance...more
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently issued a ruling vacating the “gender-identity related portions” of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) 2024 Guidance interpreting Title...more
DECISION ALERT: AMES V. OHIO DEP’T OF YOUTH SVCS. INTRODUCTION: On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that so-called “reverse discrimination” claims—discrimination claims...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court invalidated how some courts evaluated so-called “reverse discrimination” cases. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that a majority-group plaintiff need not show “background...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously struck down the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which had required majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a longstanding rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts that imposed a...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court lowered the bar for majority-group plaintiffs – ruling they are not required to meet a higher standard to bring reverse discrimination claims. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v....more