NLRB Authority in Jeopardy, Pregnant Worker Protections, Non-Compete Order Rescinded, EEOC Right-to-Sue Rule - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Disparate Impact & Enforcement Rollbacks: What’s the Tea in L&E?
Hiring Smarter: Best Practices for Interviews: What's the Tea in L&E?
Abortion Protections Struck Down, LGBTQ Harassment Guidance Vacated, EEO-1 Reporting Opens - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 45: New Leadership at Employment-Related Federal Agencies with David Dubberly of Maynard Nexsen
The Changing Landscape of EEOC Enforcement and Disparate Impact
#WorkforceWednesday®: EEOC/DOJ Joint DEI Guidance, EEOC Letters to Law Firms, OFCCP Retroactive DEI Enforcement - Employment Law This Week®
State AG Pulse | DEI in the Federal and State Spotlight
#WorkforceWednesday®: New DOL Leadership, NLRB Quorum, EEOC Enforcement Priorities - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: Should Employers Shift Workforce Data Collection Under President Trump? - Employment Law This Week®
10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending March 8, 2025
Daily Compliance News: March 7, 2025, The No Jail Time Edition
#WorkforceWednesday®: Workplace Law Shake-Up - DEI Challenges, NLRB Reversals, and EEOC Actions - Employment Law This Week®
The Implications of President Trump's EO on Gender Ideology: What's the Tea in L&E?
#WorkforceWednesday®: Federal Agencies Begin Compliance Efforts Under Trump Administration - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: How Will Trump’s Federal Changes Impact Employers? - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VIII-151 - EEOC Commissioner Interview: Part 1 of 2 on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
Employer Obligations to Accommodate Before Employees Arrive to Work
Reel Shorts | Labor & Employment: Navigating AI Compliance Risks in Recruiting
#WorkforceWednesday®: FTC Exits Labor Pact, EEOC Alleges Significant Underrepresentation in Tech, Sixth Circuit Affirms NLRB Ruling - Employment Law This Week®
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
On January 7, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s Title VII religious bias suit—holding the case was sufficient to survive a motion to...more
The Beltway Buzz is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business....more
In a recent opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterated the standards for balancing an employee’s religious accommodation request against the potential undue hardship that such a request may impose...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously resolved a long-running dispute about procedure under Title VII and sent a message to employers that it is important to pay attention and act promptly when faced with a Title...more
Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (U.S. June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the charge-filing requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not jurisdictional. The case...more
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States - Fort Bend County v. Davis - has sparked conversations about whether a current or former employee must file a complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a split among federal appellate courts dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file an administrative charge with the Equal...more
Recently, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a jurisdictional question: If a plaintiff fails to exhaust her remedies by first filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that the requirement that a plaintiff exhaust his/her administrative remedies before filing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a mandatory...more
Welcome to June! As we head into the summer, the employment law world continues to heat up! We have rounded up the most recent developments impacting employers for your summer reading pleasure here....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: New decision from the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file with the EEOC or other state agencies is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, which means it can be...more
The Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the charge-filing precondition to suit of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver, not a jurisdictional bar to...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for employees to file an administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a claim for discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, and retaliation, but it requires that a plaintiff file a charge of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 3, 2019, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, that federal courts may hear plaintiffs' claims of discrimination brought under Title VII, even if those claims were not brought...more
Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is nonjurisdictional and is subject to forfeiture rules, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 3. The decision does not eliminate the rule that employees must first file charges...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case of Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") to file an administrative charge...more
Employers Can No Longer Wait To Assert Affirmative Defense of Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies In Fort Bend County v. Davis, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday, June 3, 2019, that the...more
What the Supreme Court's decision in Fort Bend really means. As you may have heard, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a plaintiff to proceed with a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit even though she didn't file a...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional predicate for litigation and that an employer who fails to raise this defense has waived it. In a...more