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
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025), making clear that an employee-plaintiff who is a member of a majority group cannot be held...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more
On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the notion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes special requirements on a “majority-group” plaintiff trying to make an initial...more
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that Title VII’s protections against discrimination do not require majority group individuals (including white people, men, and heterosexuals) to...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court last Thursday held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes no additional requirements on majority-group...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Oldham v. Pennsylvania State Univ., No. 22-2056 (3d Cir. May 29, 2025) that Title IX may allow for claims by non-students and non-employees. In the...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of petitioner, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who commenced a reverse discrimination case against her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth...more
In a unanimous decision issued June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vacated a Sixth Circuit ruling that imposed a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs in Title...more
The closely watched battle over “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concluded Wednesday with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services in which the Plaintiff alleged reverse discrimination based on sexual orientation. Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 as an...more
On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “background circumstances” test previously applied by several federal circuits in “reverse discrimination” cases....more
The U.S. Supreme Court set the record straight on June 5, 2025 — reminding employers that all employees are created equal when it comes to Title VII litigation in federal court. The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of...more
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
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
Employers often place employees on paid administrative leave while they investigate accusations of employee misconduct or make decisions regarding the employees’ employment. Traditionally, most federal courts agreed that this...more
In its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees based on their...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
On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its new Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the Guidance), the first update to its Guidance in over 20 years. Among the many...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
Thus far, 2024 has been a whirlwind of new employment rules, statutes, guidance, and decisions for employers to grapple with and account for in their businesses. Among these decisions are a handful of rulings from the Supreme...more
In a recent decision, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining whether an adverse employment action is a sufficient basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII of the...more
It is generally understood, or at least it has been in the past, that plaintiffs prefer to avoid the application of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) and instead present their cases to juries. As such, plaintiffs have...more
Under the recent Supreme Court Ruling of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, employees no longer need to suffer “significant” harm to state a claim of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”)....more