Brian Goodrich and Katherine Skeele Share the Strength That Came from Being Out in Their Professional Lives
DE Under 3: New Controversial Proposed Rule Affecting Title VII
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC's LGBTQ+ Guidance Blocked, Employer COVID-19 Update, NYC Prepares for Pay Transparency Law - Employment Law This Week®
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Biden Administration Quick Take – Three Employment Law Initiatives We’re Monitoring
Leaders Moving Business Forward with Alphonso David of the Human Rights Campaign
The Year Ahead: Litigation Hot Spots at a Glance
Labor & Employment Law: Vermont and Federal Legislative Update
Illegal or ill-mannered? Title VII meets Ms. Manners
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Decision on LGBTQ Employees, EEOC on Older Workers Returning to Work - Employment Law This Week®
[WEBINAR] Labor & Employment Law: What Changed in 2017
Employment Law This Week®: Title VII & Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Joint-Employer Test, Dodd-Frank Protections, Equal Pay Lawsuit
II-26 – Superbowl Concerns, Tax Reform/MeToo, Restrictive Covenant Crimes, and Expanded Religious Discrimination Theories
II-25 – Top 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Employers in 2018
Employment Law This Week®: Sexual Orientation Discrimination, NLRB Nominees, Trump’s Travel Ban, Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protections
Employment Law This Week: Fiduciary Rule Takes Effect June 9, Rescission of Persuader Rule, Title VII & Sexual Orientation, Overhauling the NLRA
Employment Law This Week®: Sexual Orientation Bias, Religious Discrimination, At-Will Employment Provision, Class Arbitration
Employment Law This Week: Sexual Orientation Discrimination Suits, Tip Pooling, Successor Liability, Trade Secrets, Workplace Solicitation
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees equal protection to all employees, even if they belong to majority or minority groups....more
In a decision issued June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously found that the burden of proof on a plaintiff asserting an employment discrimination claim is the same, regardless of whether the plaintiff is...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
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson states that Title VII does not require a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority” group to present “additional background circumstances” as the lower court had...more
Before June 5, 2025, the law (at least in some jurisdictions) was that majority-group employees (e.g., white or heterosexual) had to show additional “background circumstances” in addition to a prima facie case to prove...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 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
Hune 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in the case of Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, that “the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a...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