Supreme Court Miniseries: Religious Accommodation at Work
DE Under 3: New Controversial Proposed Rule Affecting Title VII
California Employment News: Best Practices for Office Holiday Celebrations
DE Under 3: Employment Poster Requirements & the U.S. DOJ’s First-Ever Criminal Anti-Trust Prosecution
Employment Law Now VI-116-Top 10 Employment Issues To Consider For The Summer Kick-Off
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Enforcement Uptick, New York Limits Private Confidential Settlements, Anti-Harassment Training for Virtual World - Employment Law This Week®
Return to Work: Employer-Mandated COVID-19 Vaccination Policies and Accommodating Employee Disabilities and Religious Beliefs
#WorkforceWednesday: The Biden EEOC, New Religious Guidance, and Diversity Training Ban Repealed - Employment Law This Week
Vaccines in the time of COVID [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 15]
II-26 – Superbowl Concerns, Tax Reform/MeToo, Restrictive Covenant Crimes, and Expanded Religious Discrimination Theories
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
Part 1 of 2: My Sit-Down Interview With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Episode 08: Chat With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Employment Law This Week®: Sexual Orientation Bias, Religious Discrimination, At-Will Employment Provision, Class Arbitration
Annual Labor & Employment Update 2013
What is at will employment law?
Is Veganism a Religion? It May Well Be for Employers and Their Employees
The State of Oklahoma has a charter school law similar in many respects to New York’s Charter Schools Act. Like in New York, Oklahoma charter schools are authorized by a state board via charter agreements between the state...more
In a one-sentence, 4-to-4 per curiam decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling that approval of a religious school's participation in the state's charter school program would violate the...more
On Thursday, May 22, the Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions: Kousisis v. United States, No. 23-909: This case addresses the elements of the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343....more
The past few decades have seen a Supreme Court receptive to claims brought on the basis of freedom of religion. For example, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (June 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care...more
In last term’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly increased employers’ obligation to consider religious exemption requests under Title VII. Rather than the previous de minimus burden standard,...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously resolved a long-running dispute about procedure under Title VII and sent a message to employers that it is important to pay attention and act promptly when faced with a Title...more
Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (U.S. June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the charge-filing requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not jurisdictional. The case...more
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States - Fort Bend County v. Davis - has sparked conversations about whether a current or former employee must file a complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a split among federal appellate courts dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file an administrative charge with the Equal...more
Recently, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a jurisdictional question: If a plaintiff fails to exhaust her remedies by first filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that the requirement that a plaintiff exhaust his/her administrative remedies before filing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a mandatory...more
Welcome to June! As we head into the summer, the employment law world continues to heat up! We have rounded up the most recent developments impacting employers for your summer reading pleasure here....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: New decision from the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file with the EEOC or other state agencies is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, which means it can be...more
The Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the charge-filing precondition to suit of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver, not a jurisdictional bar to...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for employees to file an administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a claim for discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, and retaliation, but it requires that a plaintiff file a charge of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 3, 2019, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, that federal courts may hear plaintiffs' claims of discrimination brought under Title VII, even if those claims were not brought...more
Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is nonjurisdictional and is subject to forfeiture rules, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 3. The decision does not eliminate the rule that employees must first file charges...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case of Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") to file an administrative charge...more
Employers Can No Longer Wait To Assert Affirmative Defense of Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies In Fort Bend County v. Davis, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday, June 3, 2019, that the...more
What the Supreme Court's decision in Fort Bend really means. As you may have heard, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a plaintiff to proceed with a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit even though she didn't file a...more