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
Reshaping the litigation landscape for workplace discrimination claims, last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540 (June 5, 2025), that plaintiffs bringing so-called...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
The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral arguments in a case to determine whether employees who are part of a majority group must meet a higher standard to prove discrimination....more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that challenges the heightened evidentiary burden imposed on majority-group plaintiffs in Title VII...more
On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court and all three counsel appearing before it in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, appeared to walk away in “radical agreement” — as noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch — that a...more
On October 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Case No. 23-1039) to decide whether plaintiffs who are members of historically majority communities asserting...more
A new Maryland law allows the attorney general to seek equitable relief and fines of up to $25,000, as well as fees, against civil rights violators. The Maryland General Assembly passed during its recent session SB 540,...more
Nine months after the United States Supreme Court's historic decision in Bostock, the Texas Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had to decide whether the interpretation of Title VII's language in protecting LGBTQ employees also...more
Last summer, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which held that the protected classification of “sex” under Title VII included sexual orientation and gender identity....more
As one of his first actions in office, President Joe Biden has issued an executive order ensuring that last year’s US Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is applied immediately and efficiently by all federal...more
Georgia law prohibits private employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of age, disability and sex (specifically compensation-based claims). There are, however, no state statutes prohibiting private...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Laws protecting individuals from discrimination and harassment in the workplace are expanding rapidly at the state and local levels, while the federal landscape remains unclear regarding LGBTQ rights. ...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Despite the major ideological shift that occurred within American politics in 2017, government-initiated litigation continued to flourish if not increase even after with the election of the pro-business...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The first eight months of the new administration signals a retrenchment on the executive branch’s view of legal protections due LGBT individuals, including in employment....more
The Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in a case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that presents the question of whether the prohibition on employment discrimination on the basis of...more
On July 26, 2017, President Trump announced via Twitter that the military, arguably the country’s largest employer, will no longer allow transgender people to serve, thus breaking from the Obama Administration’s lift of the...more
On March 10, 2017, in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that it was bound by prior precedent that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not...more
Employee Was Harassed at Hawthorne Applebee's Because of Her Gender Identity And Fired for Objecting, Federal Agency Charges - NEW YORK - Apple Metro, Inc., which operates several dozen Applebee's Neighborhood Bar & Grill...more
THE EVOLVING DEFINITION OF SEX(UAL ORIENTATION) UNDER TITLE VII - On April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its highly anticipated decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, making...more
In a May 16 Blog Post, I reviewed several cases dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s ban on discrimination “because of . . . sex” included a ban on discrimination “because of sexual preferences.” I summarized...more
While the Seventh Circuit definitively has held that sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination “because of sex” and, therefore, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (as reported by...more
In a landmark decision, the Seventh Circuit recently held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of actionable sex discrimination under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unlike the...more
Last month, I wrote that in the absence of significant Congressional action on the labor and employment front, states and cities are increasingly willing to take steps to improve employment protections. Some courts appear...more
In a landmark decision overruling decades of precedent, the Seventh Circuit en banc declared that sexual orientation discrimination violates Title VII in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. This comes as the first decision...more