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
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
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 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 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
The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on the contentious issue of reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars disparate treatment of employees on the basis of race, color, religion,...more
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a heightened burden for plaintiffs in “majority-groups” to meet their evidentiary burden in discrimination...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
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, resolving a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit split in the matter of Ames v. Ohio Dep't. of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ____ (2025). The Supreme Court...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a Plaintiff alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII be held to the same standard as if they belonged to another suspect class. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth...more
In a case filed by a heterosexual woman claiming she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that she should not be required to meet a higher standard to prove...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court invalidated how some courts evaluated so-called “reverse discrimination” cases. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that a majority-group plaintiff need not show “background...more
The United States Supreme Court has held that the evidentiary standards for “reverse discrimination” claims under federal employment law must be the same as those set for claims brought by members of minority groups....more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously struck down the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which had required majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened...more
On June 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision making it easier for employees to prove claims of so-called “reverse” discrimination (i.e., suits brought by a member of a majority group alleging to have been treated...more
Today, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously held that in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not...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
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the dismissal of a heterosexual woman’s Title VII claims, concluding that she was improperly subjected to a heightened prima facie standard that required her to show...more
On June 5th the U.S. Supreme Court held that majority-group plaintiffs do not have to show special “background circumstances” to support a Title VII discrimination claim. ...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, which questioned whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly decided that a heterosexual plaintiff should have...more
A federal appeals court recently held that an employer’s health insurance plan wrongly excluded coverage for gender-affirming care in violation of federal civil rights law – offering a warning to employers across the country...more
This past June, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County expanded the protections of Title VII, which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee or applicant “because of … sex,” to...more
This edition of Employment Flash summarizes key employment law issues related to COVID-19 as well as two seminal U.S. Supreme Court rulings that protect gay and transgender employees from discrimination, and clarify the...more
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) - Summary: Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity....more
Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the notion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of their sexual...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) determined that discrimination...more