Work This Way: An Employment Law Video Podcast | Episode 51: Smarter Recruiting Strategies with Rhiannon Poore of Forge Search
Constangy Clips Ep. 11 - Summer Interns and Short-Term Workers: 3 Tips for Managing Seasonal Hires
Hiring Smarter: Best Practices for Interviews: What's the Tea in L&E?
Handling References and Referrals While Safeguarding Your Business
(Podcast) California Employment News: Fair Chance Act – A Brief Overview of Employment Criminal Background Checks
California Employment News: Fair Chance Act – A Brief Overview of Employment Criminal Background Checks
A Guide to Running Background Checks: What's the Tea in L&E?
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 496: The Early BigLaw Recruiting Timeline (w/Sadie Jones)
DE Talk | How SMBs Can Use AI Hiring Tech in Inclusive Ways
Reel Shorts | Labor & Employment: Navigating AI Compliance Risks in Recruiting
Leading the Ted Lasso Way: Cultivating a Positive Leadership Mindset - Hiring to Firing Podcast
The Burr Broadcast: AI in the Workplace
#WorkforceWednesday®: Staples Sued Over MA’s Lie Detector Notice, NJ’s Gender-Neutral Dress Code, 2024 Voting Leave Policies - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: AI Revolution is Now Here with Major Ramifications
DE Under 3: Court Held That Workday Was an “Agent” to Employers Licensing its AI Applicant Screening Tools
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 24: Young Professionals and The Emerging Workforce with Kamber Parker
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 22: Compensation Programs with Carrie Cavanaugh of Find Great People
Employment Law Now VIII-144 – Current AI Regulatory Landscape and Employer Best Practices
DE Under 3: An Explanation of the Current Federal Budget Bill Confusion
DE Under 3: Four Things Recruiters Should Take Away from Our “Year-over-Year” Unemployment Pool Comparison Charts
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a heightened burden for plaintiffs in “majority-groups” to meet their evidentiary burden in discrimination...more
Legislative Update - Governor Brown recently signed into state law the following employment law bills (among others): SB 358—Referred to as the California Fair Pay Act, this law is directed at closing the pay...more
The 2014-15 United States Supreme Court term featured a number of significant cases to the business community. The Faegre Baker Daniels appellate advocacy group is committed to helping our clients understand the Court’s...more
Most employers know that Title VII prohibits discrimination against applicants or employees based on religion. They also know that Title VII requires employers to provide reasonable, religion-based accommodations to employees...more
The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the EEOC’s lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., alleging that Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire a Muslim applicant, who wore a...more
Federal anti-discrimination laws (“Title VII”) prohibit an employer from refusing to hire a candidate to avoid accommodating a suspected, but unconfirmed religious practice, according to a recent United States Supreme Court...more
Employer’s Motive, Not Confirmed Knowledge Of Accommodation Need, Is Basis Of Religious Accommodation Violation - Federal anti-discrimination laws (“Title VII”) prohibit an employer from refusing to hire a candidate to...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits employers from, among other things, refusing to hire an applicant because of his or her religion or religious practice. As a general rule, employers must...more
In a case Justice Antonin Scalia described as “really easy,” the Supreme Court held that an employer can be liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice even if the employer lacks actual knowledge of a need for an...more
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court decided EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, a Title VII case involving religious discrimination. While the case did not directly involve the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the...more
Abercrombie & Fitch’s “Look Policy” Needs A Makeover After The Supreme Court Looked At It - The Abercrombie & Fitch clothing company is famous for their scantily clad models with six-packs and very little actual clothing...more
In a nutshell, the Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie means this: if an employment decision is motivated by religion – even if the employer does not actually know the religious need of the individual – then the...more
Last week, in EEOC. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The background of the case dates to 2008. A young woman...more
As most lawyers and HR professionals know, on June 1, 2015, Justice Antonin Scalia authored a concise opinion, overturning the Tenth Circuit and holding that Abercrombie & Fitch had intentionally discriminated against...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that an employer cannot escape liability for religious discrimination under Title VII by arguing that it did not have actual knowledge of an individual's need for a religious...more
On Monday, June 1, the Supreme Court decided a religious discrimination case involving Abercrombie & Fitch and the EEOC. The Court held that "[a]n employee may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. resulted in an expected outcome but provided an unexpectedly small amount of practical guidance for employers. ...more
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the EEOC today and clarified the standard for religious accommodation and disparate-treatment claims under Title VII. The Court ruled that an applicant can advance a disparate-treatment claim...more
An employer’s obligation to raise the issue of potential accommodations for religious discrimination under Title VII will soon receive clarification, as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch...more