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
On June 27, 2025, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that universal injunctions—injunctions that prohibit the federal government from enforcing a law, regulation, order, or policy to any person, not just the...more
A federal judge has ruled that the President Trump violated federal law when he fired Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, as a member of the FTC....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. 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
In a decision earlier this year, the US Supreme Court held that plaintiffs bringing civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims may be able to recover damages for business or property losses that...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
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—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 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, No. 24-249, holding that discrimination claims brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of...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
On June 6, 2025, in a decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which denied Catholic Charities Bureau an exemption from the state’s...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
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