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
BLOG OVERVIEW: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has entered into a consent decree with Battleground Restaurants, Inc. and Battleground Restaurant Group, Inc. regarding discriminatory practices towards...more
On July 29, 2025, the US Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, issued a new guidance memorandum that clarifies what the DOJ considers to be “unlawful discriminatory policies and practices” under...more
On July 29, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum, providing further guidance on the application of federal antidiscrimination laws, policies, programs, and practices, paying particular attention to...more
On June 24, 2025, Rhode Island enacted a law barring employers from discriminating against workers because of their menopause symptoms. The law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers experiencing...more
On July 29, 2025, the U.S. Attorney General issued a memorandum that “clarifies the application of federal antidiscrimination laws to programs or initiatives that may involve discriminatory practices, including those labeled...more
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
Better late than never. Six months after President Trump ordered the federal government to end “illegal DEI,” the U.S. Department of Justice issued a Memorandum providing guidance on diversity-related practices that it...more
If an employee complains about a sexually suggestive picture circulating in the workplace that looks like her but is not, is that a hostile work environment complaint? It might be. In Lillian Carranza v. City of Los Angeles,...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
Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement, commenced litigation against Rock Snowpark on July 2, 2025, for allegedly retaliating...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
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that Title VII does not impose a heightened or different burden of proof for majority-group plaintiffs. Simply put, “reverse discrimination” Title VII claims...more
The first half of 2025 brought unprecedented changes for federal contractors seeking to comply with federal affirmative action requirements. The rescission of Executive Order 11246 via Executive Order 14173 upended decades of...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more
The EEOC recently updated its workplace harassment enforcement guidance to reflect a Texas federal court ruling that found the Biden-era EEOC had overstepped its authority by requiring bathroom, dress, and pronoun...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on June 5, 2025, that majority group plaintiffs are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard of showing “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of...more
On June 5, 2025—in the midst of heightened scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives triggered by executive orders issued by President Trump as well as various federal agency guidance—the Supreme Court...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by some lower courts in what are often referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims is...more
In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more
If a qualified job candidate asks to reschedule a second-round interview due to severe menstrual cramps associated with endometriosis, is that a request for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act? If you...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 June 5, 2025, in a 9-0 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that members of a “majority group” do not have to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a...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 May 15, 2025, a federal district court in Texas vacated sections of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC or the “Commission”) 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the “2024 Enforcement...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, overruling the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule in employment discrimination cases. The background circumstances rule required members of a...more