The Life of a Young Lord: Felipe Luciano & the Takeover of Lincoln Hospital (2-Part Interview)
Redlining Isn’t What it Used To Be
DE Under 3: EEOC’s Settlement with the SSA is a Cautionary Tale for Private Sector Employers & Federal Government Contractors
DE Under 3: EEOC Consent Decree Illustrated Enforcement Stance Regarding Natural Hair Texture & Race Discrimination
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
The Informed Board Podcast | How Will Corporate DEI Policies Be Affected by the Supreme Court Ruling in the University Affirmative Action Cases?
The Labor Law Insider: Recent U.S. Supreme Court, NLRB Decisions Highlight Labor Issues in Higher Education
DE Under 3: The Harvard and UNC Case Decisions Are Coming
An Update on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Consumer Financial Services Industry, with Special Guest Naomi Mercer, Senior Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, American Bankers
FTC Consent Order With Auto Dealer and Proposed Rule - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Angela Jimenez Highlights Family Traditions and the Importance of Hard Work
Brad Hancock Shares How Understanding Cultural Backgrounds Strengthens Leadership
Vivian de las Cuevas-Diaz Reflects on Her Professional Path and Paving the Way for Others
Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast | Episode 55: Brendah Mpanga, BNM Advocates | Uganda
Isabel Diaz Talks About Connecting with Others Through Their Differences
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
DE Under 3: EEOC & DOJ Technical Guidance for Employer’s AI Use; Upcoming EEOC Hearing; Event for Mental Health in the Workplace
NFL’s Rooney Rule: The Flores Discrimination Suit’s Impact on DEI initiatives [More with McGlinchey Ep. 38]
Podcast - Discussing the Mission of Black Women's Health Imperative with CEO Linda Goler Blount
From Tulsa to Now: Dismantling Systemic Racism in Our Financial Systems
When is an employer legally responsible for harassment of its employee by one of its customers? A recent court decision may be a relief for employers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Most courts ruling on the...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally prohibits covered employers from taking adverse actions against employees on the basis of race, sex, and other protected categories. Employee discipline is often the subject...more
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court majority declined to review a decision affirming summary judgment for an employer in a discrimination case. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, noting that he...more
It is now well-established that “majority groups” are protected from discrimination under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. These so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits are often brought by...more
Key Takeaways - - Employers have recently prevailed in several cases across the country in which plaintiffs attacked diversity training and other DEI-related initiatives in the workplace. Decisions have indicated that many...more
In order to state a claim for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he or she had an employment relationship with the defendant. Although various...more
On July 26, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida permanently blocked Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, which restricted the types of anti-harassment and antidiscrimination training that employers can...more
On June 3rd, 2024, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision, American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Management Fund, LLC, et al, that impacts considerations for how diversity, equity and inclusion...more
Does the First Amendment right to free speech permit an employer to hire or fire an employee based on race? On its face, the proposition may seem absurd, especially as we approach the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act...more
We often hear claims from employees who threaten to sue their employer for creating a “hostile work environment.” When we dig into the complaints, often the employee is alleging that their manager is mean or unfair to them,...more
On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer, finding that a fired employee had failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext. In Owens...more
In a recent opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterated the requirements that must be met for an employee to identify a similarly situated comparator for purposes of a Title VII claim. Gamble v. FCA...more
On March 4, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which ruled in Ellis v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp....more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on a range of protected classifications. However, Title VII only applies to employment relationships and cannot be used by contractors,...more
When assessing potential exposure for their employer-clients under federal labor and employment statutes, employment and health care attorneys often must start with the basics. That determination of employment status becomes...more
In recent years, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia) has substantially lowered the legal bar for plaintiffs to demonstrate a hostile work environment based on...more
Bringing positive news for employers and a welcome distraction from the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Supreme Court recently held that for claims of racial discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of...more
Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Upholding But-For Causation in Section 1981 Discrimination Cases - The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that a plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in...more
On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African-American Owned Media, ruled that a plaintiff who alleges race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 must plead and...more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court last week ensured that a high standard will be used when assessing whether claims of race discrimination under Section 1981 should advance past the early stages of litigation....more
Surrounded by the confusion and anxiety of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it may feel refreshing to step back and consider some of the basic tenets of employment law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp....more
In a unanimous decision issued on March 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that a but-for causation standard applies to claims brought under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court also...more
On Monday, March 23, the United States Supreme Court, in a nearly unanimous opinion, ruled that a plaintiff asserting race discrimination claims in the making of a contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) bears the...more
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits intentional race discrimination in all forms of contracting including employment. Lower courts have split as to whether a § 1981 plaintiff must prove that race was only one...more
In recent years, a number of federal appellant courts, including the Fourth Circuit, have issued opinions finding that a single use of a racial slur can be enough to constitute a hostile and offensive working environment...more