Hot Spots in Employment Law 2022
High at Work? Key Considerations for NYS Employers Regarding Legal Adult-Use Marijuana
DE Talk: Disability Education & Accessibility: Overcoming the Digital Divide
Illegal or ill-mannered? Title VII meets Ms. Manners
Williams Mullen's COVID-19 Comeback Plan: Conducting Reductions in Force Post COVID-19
Podcast: IP(DC): Drug Prices, Political Pressures & Patents
II-25 – Top 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Employers in 2018
I-21 – Sexual Harassment (Still), Political Tweeting, and Intersectional Discrimination
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
Federal officials just issued another warning that employers may be at risk of losing federal funding – including grant funding – if their DEI or similar programs violate anti-discrimination laws. Recent guidance from the...more
Inexorable. Something that cannot be moved, stopped, persuaded, or altered. In Title VII parlance, the "inexorable zero" is the complete absence of a protected group from a workforce or job classification. When accompanied...more
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has blocked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from enforcing a new rule that limited sex discrimination in healthcare to discrimination based...more
You have probably seen a lot of coronavirus news alerts lately, but as a car dealer, you already know that germs are not the only things that can cause headaches. Virus or no virus, the law is still going to change and...more
Employers have long known that gender stereotyping is not allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. However, there has been some confusion over whether this prohibition...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Stepping into a new year always gives one a chance to reflect on the lessons and trends of the prior year. In that spirit, we are pleased to present our annual selections for the five most intriguing...more
On occasion, employers defending lawsuits filed by their employees raise questions over the legal validity of what most attorneys consider to be settled law. A good example comes from a recent decision by the U.S. Court of...more
The New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR) released enforcement guidance on Monday, February 18, 2019, defining discrimination based on natural hair and hairstyles as a subset of race discrimination....more
In February 2019, the New York Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”) issued guidance regarding employment discrimination based upon natural hair or hairstyles. ...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
The Department of Justice is now squarely at odds with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission over whether Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination also applies to discrimination against transgender employees. ...more
A Texas district court recently held, for the first time in the Fifth Circuit, that transgender people are a protected class under Title VII—but the plaintiff still lost her case. In Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company, the...more
We have steadily followed the evolving legal landscape, including the emerging circuit court split, surrounding whether the federal anti-discrimination law, Title VII, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or...more
On February 26, 2018, the Second Circuit ruled for the first time that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The question at issue in Zarda v. Altitude...more
On February 26, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an en-banc opinion holding that an employment action based on sexual orientation is discrimination based on sex....more
On February 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Zarda v....more
Discrimination based on sex is illegal. Does that include sexual orientation? It depends on where you live. In Texas, discrimination based on sexual orientation may be inappropriate, but it is not illegal. Elsewhere in the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court now has a greater incentive to resolve the issue of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation....more
Another federal court of appeals decided today that Title VII covers claims of sexual orientation discrimination, continuing the evolution of workplace discrimination law that has begun to sweep over the country in recent...more
Good faith and timing means everything in employment law. This episode of Employment Law Now provides an update from DC, discusses questions employers should be asking in today’s climate of troubling sexual harassment news,...more
On October 4, 2017, the United States Department of Justice, through Attorney General Jeff Sessions, issued a memorandum rescinding an Obama-era policy protecting transgender employees from employment discrimination pursuant...more
This episode discusses kneeling in the NFL/workplace, indefinite leave entitlement, and sufficient consideration for non-competes, provides an update from DC on OT exemptions and class action waivers, and questions whether...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII has been supplemented via legislative action to also prohibit discrimination due to...more
The Fourth Circuit recently upheld a lower court decision granting summary judgment to the employer in an employment discrimination suit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and Maryland law,...more
When a terminated employee alleges that her firing resulted from discrimination or retaliation, employers often dispute those claims by noting that the employer never hired anyone to take the terminated employee’s position....more