Demystifying Wage and Hour Audits: One-on-One with Courtney McFate
New FLSA Notice Standard, DOL’s PAID Program, Axed Wage and Hour Penalties - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Nationwide FLSA Lawsuits Just Got Harder—Here’s Why - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Non-Disparagement Tips for Employers
Judge Xavier Rodriguez on Possession, Custody, or Control from the Meet and Confer Podcast
The Journey of Litigation
The Labor Law Insider: How Arbitrations Help Preserve Labor-Management Peace, Part I
Master the First Moves in Litigation for Courtroom Advantage – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Workplace Risks Meet Holistic Legal Solutions: One-on-One with Adam Tomiak
The Labor Law Insider: NLRB Does a U-Turn on Make-Whole Settlement Remedies, Part II
Podcast - How Do You Define Success?
Hiring Smarter: Best Practices for Interviews: What's the Tea in L&E?
The Labor Law Insider: NLRB Does a U-Turn on Make-Whole Settlement Remedies, Part I
Handling References and Referrals While Safeguarding Your Business
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Forfeitures Under Fire
Your Guide to Dealing with Subpoenas Effectively
Navigating the Maze: eDiscovery Essentials for Employers — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Podcast - The Law as a Force for Change
Trade Secrets on Trial: Strategic Decisions for the Courtroom - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The Changing Landscape of EEOC Enforcement and Disparate Impact
In 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which arose out of a sex discrimination claim filed by a female police officer. Officer Muldrow was transferred to a different position within...more
Two years ago, the long dormant duty to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices was awakened by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. Dejoy. Gone were the days when an employer could justify the denial of a...more
When is an employer legally responsible for harassment of its employee by one of its customers? A recent court decision may be a relief for employers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Most courts ruling on the...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
An employee tells you a customer just harassed them — what should you do? In Bivens v. Zep, Inc. the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals charts its own course in addressing employer liability for third-party harassment. The Equal...more
On August 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled an employer is not liable for harassment of an employee by a third party unless the employer intended for the harassment to occur. This stark departure...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
In an explicit departure from EEOC guidance and other federal court caselaw, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employer can only be liable for a client/customer’s harassment of its...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally prohibits covered employers from taking adverse actions against employees on the basis of race, sex, and other protected categories. Employee discipline is often the subject...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
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 United States Supreme Court on June 5, 2025, in a rare unanimous decision, overturned a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that required a plaintiff, a heterosexual, to have evidence as part of her proofs to...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, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that courts cannot apply a heightened evidentiary standard to majority-group plaintiffs when deciding discrimination claims. The...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by some lower courts in what are often referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims is...more
In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 2025 WL 1583264, (U.S. June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that majority group plaintiffs (in this instance, a heterosexual plaintiff) do not need to meet...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., the U.S. Supreme Court recently settled a circuit split and held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which was applied only to plaintiffs from majority...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected use of a special legal test for plaintiffs to prove illegal bias in reverse discrimination cases. ...more
On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court revived the employment discrimination claims of an Ohio woman who contends that she was the victim of “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
More than a year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in its April 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. 346, 144 S. Ct. 967, 218 L. Ed. 2d 322 (2024) that employees need only...more
On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the notion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes special requirements on a “majority-group” plaintiff trying to make an initial...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not...more
The Supreme Court has voted unanimously to end a Circuit Court split regarding whether members of a “majority group” have additional evidentiary burdens when bringing a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for...more