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
Recently, in a case titled Bivens v. Zep, Inc., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employer will only be liable for a customer's harassment of an employee when the employer intends for such harassment to occur....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
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
Most employers understand their obligation to prevent discrimination and harassment at work, and the significant consequences that can come if such treatment is allowed to occur. But what if an employee alleges harassment not...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
Since vaccines became available in response to COVID-19, courts have dealt with an onslaught of litigation involving religious accommodation in the workplace. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...more
Workplace investigations are generally conducted outside of a litigation context and involve complaints that are not ultimately litigated. However, inevitably some workplace disputes that are investigated do make it to...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employer will be liable for a customer’s harassment of an employee only when it intends for such harassment to occur. ...more
Filing a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can be confusing when determining who the employer is. That’s especially true in a complex corporate environment, where...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
Reshaping the litigation landscape for workplace discrimination claims, last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540 (June 5, 2025), that plaintiffs bringing so-called...more
As the summer comes into full swing and many employees take time off to enjoy summer vacation, the same cannot be said for employers. It has been no secret that private sector diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs...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—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
If a qualified job candidate asks to reschedule a second-round interview due to severe menstrual cramps associated with endometriosis, is that a request for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act? If you...more
On May 15, 2025, a federal district court in Texas vacated sections of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC or the “Commission”) 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the “2024 Enforcement...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held that majority group plaintiffs do not have to meet a higher evidentiary standard than minority group plaintiffs to support their discrimination claims under federal law. In Ames v. Ohio...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, vacating and remanding a Sixth Circuit ruling against a heterosexual woman in a Title VII “reverse...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
After the White House announced that it would “deprioritize” disparate impact cases, many employers may have mistakenly concluded that disparate impact liability was no longer a concern under Title VII. However, recent...more
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson states that Title VII does not require a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority” group to present “additional background circumstances” as the lower court had...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
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