How to Balance Diverse Views in the Office
Strengthening Your Hiring Process
Non-Disparagement Tips for Employers
From Forest to Fortune: Navigating Workplace Ethics With Robin Hood — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Mid-Year Labor & Employment Law Update: Key Developments and Compliance Strategies
Disparate Impact & Enforcement Rollbacks: What’s the Tea in L&E?
NLRB Quorum Limbo, DOL Deregulation Push, Coldplay Concert Exposes Workplace Romance - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Non-Compete Compliance in 2025: State Trends and Employer Strategies
Off the Clock, On the Radar: Managing Off-Duty Conduct and Workplace Impact
New Virginia "Workplace Violence" Definition and Healthcare Reporting Law: What's the Tea in L&E?
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
(Podcast) California Employment News: Creating the Report for a Workplace Investigation – Part 4 (Featured)
Essential Steps to Sell Your Business
Multijurisdictional Employers, P2: 2025 State-by-State Updates on Non-Compete/Non-Solicitation Agts
Is the Four-Day Workweek Really a Benefit? What’s the Tea in L&E?
Workplace Risks Meet Holistic Legal Solutions: One-on-One with Adam Tomiak
Constangy Clips Ep. 11 - Summer Interns and Short-Term Workers: 3 Tips for Managing Seasonal Hires
California Employment News: Synthesizing Evidence in a Workplace Investigation – Part 3 (Featured)
Summer Strategies for Work Success
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
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that reverse discrimination claims are no longer subject to different rules. This decision alters the landscape...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court last Thursday held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes no additional requirements on majority-group...more
The closely watched battle over “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concluded Wednesday with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. 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
The U.S. Supreme Court today swung wide open the door for all persons who experience employment discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex or national origin to bring suit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil...more
Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more
The past few decades have seen a Supreme Court receptive to claims brought on the basis of freedom of religion. For example, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (June 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care...more
On April 8, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on reinstating federal workers. The case arose from a lawsuit in which the...more
In a decision which should provide some comfort to employers, the Supreme Court recently held in E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et. al. vs. Carrera, et. al. that employers do not have a higher burden of proof demonstrating that an...more
“The Hamilton decision highlights the need for employers to stay up to date on legal developments. In this one decision, the Fifth Circuit opened the door for claims that just one day earlier were not actionable. Reviewing...more
In 2024, labor law continued to generally favor employees under the Biden National Labor Relations Board (the Board). Notable developments included establishment of an employee right to wear clothes espousing political speech...more
On Jan. 15, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, which clarified that employers need only prove that an employee is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by a...more
In overtime litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the employer has the burden of proving that an employee is exempt. However, the degree of proof required was not decided until the Supreme Court spoke last week....more
Burdens of proof can be a mundane issue to discuss. Addressing the standard by which a fact finder decides a legal claim between opposing parties does not generate much enthusiasm with legal scholars. Nevertheless, the burden...more
The Supreme Court will begin a new term on October 7, and we’re watching several cases that will likely have a big impact on the workplace. The Justices will grapple with wage and hour issues, coverage under the Americans...more
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month....more
When transferring an employee or making changes to their job duties, employers now face an increased risk of claims under Title VII. On April 17, the US Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs alleging discrimination...more
On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the “Guidance”). The Guidance sets forth the EEOC’s position on harassment that constitutes...more
The Supreme Court made it easier for claimants to assert discrimination claims under Title VII in its April 17 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, et al. Previously, courts required a plaintiff to show that a workplace...more
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously lowered the burden applicable to discriminatory transfer claims brought under Title VII. According to the Court, a showing of some harm—rather than significant or some...more
SCOTUS announces ‘some harm’ standard for Title VII claims based on a mandatory job transfer. The Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., 601 U.S. ____ (April 17, 2024), held that where an...more
The Court's decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis requires plaintiffs to prove "some injury" respecting employment terms or conditions in discrimination cases....more
On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer may violate Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer did...more
On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court provided an opening for workers to allege employment discrimination claims regarding job transfers based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. In Muldrow v....more