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
The Labor Law Insider: How Unions Are Navigating Trump 2.0, Part II
A Retaliation Refresher: What's the Tea in L&E?
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
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that plaintiffs in the majority group within a protected class have the same burden of proof at summary judgment to demonstrate...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, overruling the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule in employment discrimination cases. The background circumstances rule required members of a...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
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (the EPA) and related state laws require employers to pay men and women equally for equal work. ...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to meet a more stringent burden of proof in order to prove unlawful employment discrimination under Title VII of the...more
Just today, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a contentious disagreement between courts regarding the burden of proof required to bring a disparate treatment claim under Title VII. While the majority of appeals courts in the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court set the record straight on June 5, 2025 — reminding employers that all employees are created equal when it comes to Title VII litigation in federal court. The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of...more
On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which is a case that will determine whether a plaintiff bringing a so-called reverse discrimination claim (where, for...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that could alter the legal landscape for employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil...more
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has issued an opinion interpreting, for the first time, several provisions of the Puerto Rico Labor Reform Act of 2017, specifically holding the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework...more
A newly enacted, under-the-radar statute in California could undermine efforts by employers to challenge the expert opinion testimony regarding alleged emotional distress offered by employees at trial. In many if not most...more
One of the most important decisions in employment discrimination law this year remains the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Balderson v. Lincare Inc., in which the Court reiterated that Title VII plaintiffs (and...more
The Iowa Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rumsey v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., et. al provides needed clarity in what the court described as the “murky” intersection between workers’ compensation and disability...more
The UK Supreme Court decision in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi confirms that employees must still prove facts from which a tribunal could draw an inference of discrimination before their claim can proceed, despite a change of...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit has recently decided a case involving an extremely obese bus driver and denied his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as...more
An individual may file a claim under Tennessee’s “whistleblower statute”—the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA)—if she was fired solely for reporting or refusing to participate in illegal activity. Similar to federal law,...more
A federal Court of Appeals just ruled that extreme obesity not caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition does not qualify as an impairment under the ADA. Under the 7th Circuit’s June 12 ruling, proof that...more
In this weeks issue: - You broke it, you fix it – unpaid holiday could be carried forward indefinitely - Go with the flow – burden of proof shifts in discrimination claims - Going up – increased minimum wage and...more