Abortion Protections Struck Down, LGBTQ Harassment Guidance Vacated, EEO-1 Reporting Opens - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast - Ruling: Las mujeres toman cerveza a los 18 años
DE Under 3: EEOC & DOJ Technical Guidance for Employer’s AI Use; Upcoming EEOC Hearing; Event for Mental Health in the Workplace
Episode 24: Corporate Oppression Doctrine Meets Sex Discrimination: A Conversation with Professor Meredith Miller
College Esports Programs: What You Need To Know
Framing the American Past to Better Understand Women and Gender History with UC Davis Professors Ellen Hartigan -O’Conner and Lisa Materson: On Record PR
Election 2020: The Future of Pay Equity
#WorkforceWednesday: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Leaves Behind a Legacy - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Decision on LGBTQ Employees, EEOC on Older Workers Returning to Work - Employment Law This Week®
This Week in FCPA-Episode 142 - the What’s in Your Supply Chain? edition
Investigating Harassment Claims
Episode 25: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part II: Other Emerging EEOC Trends + Takeaways
Episode 24: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part I: Employers' "Superstar Harassment" Problem
I-12: Update on the DOL's New OT Rules, and Part 2 of My Interview with Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Part 1 of 2: My Sit-Down Interview With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Stealth Lawyer: Clare Dalton, Acupuncturist
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
It was announced on July 7 that IBM had resolved a former consultant’s “reverse” discrimination claim for an undisclosed sum, closing the door on his Title VII race and sex discrimination lawsuit. This settlement is yet...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 2025 WL 1583264, (U.S. June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that majority group plaintiffs (in this instance, a heterosexual plaintiff) do not need to meet...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to meet a more stringent burden of proof in order to prove unlawful employment discrimination under Title VII of the...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a longstanding rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts that imposed a...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But does that protection apply equally to white, male, or...more
At least one court says yes. True confession: When I was a little future lawyer, I was sometimes a pain. (So, Robin, you’re saying your personality hasn't changed in all these years?) When I was being especially “high...more
Last week, the Supreme Court accepted review of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The court will address a circuit split regarding the standard courts apply in discrimination claims brought by majority group...more
The United States Supreme Court recently settled a circuit split concerning when an involuntary lateral transfer may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court’s opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis...more
In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that transferring an employee to a new position with the same rank and pay may constitute an adverse action under Title VII. The recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis,...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that to sustain a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), plaintiffs do...more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the threshold for employees to demonstrate discrimination under Title VII, the Sixth Circuit has expanded the scope of what employers...more
In a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, a police sergeant alleged that she was transferred from one job to a less desirable job in the police department because of her sex....more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more
Picture this: You're just about set to open a new workplace in Smallsville. The only hurdle remaining is finding the right person to manage the new location. After giving this problem considerable thought, you think you've...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Muldrow vs. City of St. Louis, which held that Title VII – which bars employers from discriminating in decisions involving among other things, lateral transfers – does...more
In a recently decided case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a job transfer may demonstrate adverse action even when the transfer does not result in a loss of pay or other benefit. A unanimous Court held in Muldrow v. City of...more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (No. 22-193) and held that “some injury” is sufficient to establish a federal discrimination or...more
In January 2024, we reported on a significant case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, which was then pending before the United States Supreme Court. On April 17, 2024, the Court issued its decision in this...more
If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a mandatory job transfer might be considered an “adverse employment action” under federal anti-discrimination law. Following this decision, which creates a lesser standard for...more
Can an employee sue under Title VII to challenge a lateral transfer, even if the transfer does not result in a loss of pay? According to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the answer is: Yes....more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, 601 U.S. _____ (2024), which addressed the appropriate standard for evaluating whether a job transfer – even where the...more