The Implications of President Trump's EO on Gender Ideology: What's the Tea in L&E?
Unveiling Gender-Affirming Care: Why It Matters and What’s at Stake – Diagnosing Health Care
DE Under 3: New Controversial Proposed Rule Affecting Title VII
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC's LGBTQ+ Guidance Blocked, Employer COVID-19 Update, NYC Prepares for Pay Transparency Law - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: Data Gathering & Data Delivery
DE Under 3: New Data Collection Burdens, NLRB’s Ruling Regarding Union Election Dismissals, and OMB’s Tech Modernization Fund
DE Under 3: DEAMcon22, Remarks from OFCCP Director Yang & EEOC Commissioner Sonderling & Vaccine Mandate Updates
DE Under 3: EEO-1 Survey Closure Date, Non-Binary Reporting Updates, and Government Agency Equity Plans
Helping the Transgender Community Through The Name Change Project with Samantha Rothaus of Davis+Gilbert: On Record PR
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Biden Administration Quick Take – Three Employment Law Initiatives We’re Monitoring
The Year Ahead: Litigation Hot Spots at a Glance
Labor & Employment Law: Vermont and Federal Legislative Update
Illegal or ill-mannered? Title VII meets Ms. Manners
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Decision on LGBTQ Employees, EEOC on Older Workers Returning to Work - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law This Week®: NJ Limits NDAs, DOL’s Proposed Overtime Rule, Pay Data Collection, Sexual Harassment Training
[WEBINAR] Labor & Employment Law: What Changed in 2017
Episode 25: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part II: Other Emerging EEOC Trends + Takeaways
Part 1 of 2: My Sit-Down Interview With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Employment Law This Week: Joint-Employer Guidance Rescinded, NYC’s “Fair Workweek” Bills, ADA and Gender Dysphoria, Philadelphia’s Salary History Law
On June 18, 2025, in the case of United States v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care—concluding that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth...more
In this month’s instalment, our team summarises the latest UK case law and developments in employment law – and their implications for employers. In For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Supreme...more
Our employment law update for April covers the Supreme Court decision the correct definition of “sex” and “woman” in the Equality Act and a Court of Appeal decision providing guidelines on gross misconduct dismissals....more
Holland & Knight previously explained how injunctions issued in many states blocked enforcement of 2024 Title IX regulations in those states (a list that eventually grew to 26 states) and how a Kansas federal district court's...more
A federal appeals court recently held that an employer’s health insurance plan wrongly excluded coverage for gender-affirming care in violation of federal civil rights law – offering a warning to employers across the country...more
A Florida public school’s transgender bathroom ban was recently upheld by a federal appeals court, leading to a circuit split that may need to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, in a 7-4 ruling, the 11th...more
This past June, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County expanded the protections of Title VII, which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee or applicant “because of … sex,” to...more
In a major win for transgender rights, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor a transgender teenager who wanted to use the boys’ bathroom at his former school, finding that the school district violated his...more
Gender segregation in bathrooms, which some conservatives have predicted for decades would be undermined by sex discrimination laws, has in fact proven to be a persistent target for civil rights litigation in at least one...more
Report on Medicare Compliance 29, no. 30 (August 24, 2020) - A federal court on Aug. 17 blocked HHS from enforcing its revised definition of sex discrimination in Sec. 1557, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of...more
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) - Summary: Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity....more
In Wittmer v. Phillips 66, Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit wasted no time stating the Fifth Circuit’s position on whether sexual orientation or transgender status are protected classes under Title VII – they are not....more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
In a unanimous decision in EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., a three-judge Sixth Circuit panel has held that discrimination on the basis of transgender status is “necessarily” discrimination on the basis of sex...more
Executive Summary: Overruling prior circuit precedent, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held yesterday that sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination under Title VII. ...more
In a bit of a surprise move, the U.S. Supreme Court today passed on an opportunity to provide some long-awaited clarity on the interplay between sexual orientation and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Evans v....more
On October 24, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Western District of Missouri issued an opinion affirming that sex stereotyping is a form of gender discrimination that is actionable under the Missouri Human Rights Act...more
In Lampley, et al. v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that sex stereotyping can form the basis of a sex discrimination claim when the complaining party is gay, but should not be...more
In July 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") published a guidance titled What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers, which took the position that employment...more
In a landmark en banc decision rejecting its earlier panel ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit became the first federal appellate court to hold that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits...more
On April 4, 2017, an en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, the Seventh Circuit became the first federal Court of Appeals to hold that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on...more
Federal law—specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on a number of protected characteristics, including sex, race, national origin, and religion....more
In a significant decision that expands the rights of employees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on April 4, 2017 that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination...more
In an 8-3 en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, the Seventh Circuit has held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. In so holding, the...more
Groundbreaking Decision Could Lead Other Federal Courts To Follow Suit - This week, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal court of appeals in the nation to rule that sexual orientation claims are...more