Early Returns Law and Politics with Jan Baran: A Supreme Path: From Latin to Campaign Finance Law, to 38 Oral Arguments – Kannon Shanmugam
A Supreme Path: From Latin to Campaign Finance Law, to 38 Oral Arguments – Kannon Shanmugam
Opening Statements: The Prohibition Against Argument
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: SCOTUS Hears Oral Argument in Cases Challenging Biden Administration Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Observations and Predictions
Jury Charges and Oral Argument | David Keltner | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Reflections on Sackett - Reflections on Water Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC COVID-19 Charges Surge, NYC’s Pay Transparency Law, SCOTUS Considers PAGA - Employment Law This Week®
What will SCOTUS Decide on the OSHA ETS and CMS Vaccine and Testing Mandates?
Why Lawyers Should Care About Typography | Matthew Butterick | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Extending into Other Media | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
A Judicial Perspective on Using Technology at Oral Argument | Judge John Owens | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
College Sports, Video Games & the Right of Publicity With Guest Michael McCann of Sportico
Game On: College Sports, Video Games & the Right of Publicity With Guest Michael McCann of Sportico
Helping the Court Decide Your Case | Justice April Farris | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
A Break Down of the SCOTUS Oral Argument on First Amendment Right to Privacy in Association
JONES DAY TALKS®: U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in NCAA Antitrust Case
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Personal Jurisdiction Part 3 – Oral Arguments in the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 12]
Practice Makes Perfect: Mock Oral Arguments and Effective Oral Advocacy
The Supreme Court is likely to soon rule that majority-group plaintiffs must meet the same pre-trial evidentiary burden applicable to minority-group plaintiffs – and nothing more – in workplace discrimination claims under...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. This case that could significantly impact the standards for proving employment discrimination claims under Title...more
In a recent oral argument, the Justices seemed largely aligned with the plaintiff’s position that majority and historically disadvantaged groups should face the same prima facie test under Title VII....more
On December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a Title VII case out of the Eighth Circuit. The petitioner, Sergeant Jatonya Muldrow of the St. Louis Police Department, alleged sex...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: One of the most anticipated employment cases of the term was recently argued before the United States Supreme Court. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis the Court requested the parties address the issue:...more
Even as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., No. 22-193, on Dec. 6, 2023, on the narrow issue of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits job transfers that do...more
How far must employers go to accommodate their employees' sincerely held religious beliefs? Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Groff v. DeJoy, a case that asks the Justices to answer this very question—and...more
On April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Groff v. DeJoy, a case raising the issue of how great a burden an employer must bear in order to accommodate an employee’s religious belief or practices....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Yesterday the Supreme Court held oral argument in Groff v. DeJoy, a case in which the Court is considering whether to overturn decades of precedent established by the seminal religious accommodation case,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether its own definition of “undue hardship” with respect to religious accommodation requests, which employers have relied upon for more than 45 years, remains valid when it hears...more
Will the Supreme Court make it more difficult for employers to deny religious accommodation requests even if they are burdensome for the business? Recently, the Justices agreed to decide a case brought by a mail carrier who...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s October term started earlier this month, and promises to be an unprecedented session. How is the Court responding to the pandemic and adapting to a virtual environment? Which cases should you be...more
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 8 in three closely watched cases addressing whether Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of … sex,” covers discrimination based on LGBT...more
As many of our readers may know, last week the Supreme Court heard an extraordinary two hours of oral argument in a pair of closely watched cases that could reshape federal discrimination law. Both cases seek to determine...more
On October 8, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument on one core question: does the prohibition on discrimination “because of...sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include...more
This week the United States Supreme Court commenced its 2019-2020 term, during which it will examine significant questions related to the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yesterday, on October 8th, the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Toomey v. U of Arizona, No. 19-35 (D. Ar. June 24, 2019), the Magistrate Judge determined on a motion to dismiss that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on a person’s transgender status. ...more
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on April 4 concerning whether a website accessibility plan pursuant to a prior settlement agreement moots injunctive relief claims under Title III of the...more
In last week’s oral argument on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, Chief Justice Roberts asked the following question: Counsel, I’m, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve...more
WASHINGTON-- Samantha Elauf filed the original charge of religious discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that led to today's argument in the Supreme Court. She has the following statement...more