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
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Sixth Circuit’s rule, which required plaintiffs of a majority group to satisfy an additional burden as part of establishing a prima facie case of Title...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
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 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
Maintenance Director Unlawfully Fired Because of His Sexual Orientation, Federal Agency Charged - COLUMBUS, Ohio – Aspire Regional Partners, Inc., MSTC Development, Inc., and their nursing homes known as the Northwood...more
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County,140 S. Ct. 1731, 1754 (2020) that expanded the prohibition against sex discrimination under Title VII (“Title VII”) of the Civil Rights Act to include discrimination on...more
Join Hinshaw and the LGBTQ+ Lawyers Association of Los Angeles on June 23, 2021, as we commemorate June Pride Month with a webinar featuring practical guidance on LGBTQ+ employment and workplace issues. This one-hour CLE...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
Please join Nelson Mullins and LGBTQ+ leaders as we kick-off Atlanta Pride weekend with an online discussion of the legal and political battles ahead in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision and rethinking...more
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia marks a turning point and milestone victory for the LGBTQ+ community. The decision will impact the fight to end discrimination based on gender...more
In light of his Supreme Court win in June. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has revived a Title VII lawsuit filed by Gerald Bostock, who had sued Clayton County, Georgia, alleging that the county terminated...more
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has blocked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from enforcing a new rule that limited sex discrimination in healthcare to discrimination based...more
On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a watershed decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, holding, for the first time, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits discrimination in the...more
You have probably seen a lot of coronavirus news alerts lately, but as a car dealer, you already know that germs are not the only things that can cause headaches. Virus or no virus, the law is still going to change and...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
In June of this year, the United States Supreme Court held that an employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgender violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII prohibits employers from refusing...more
On June 15, 2020, in a landmark 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual...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
When the Supreme Court recently concluded that Title VII protects LGBTQ employees from discrimination based on their “sex” in its Bostock v. Clayton County opinion, many schools immediately asked: “What does this mean for...more
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that certain federal employment protections against sex discrimination extend to employer discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In light of this ruling,...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
On June 15, 2020, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, found its place in history as a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case for LGBTQ+ rights in the workplace. A long-awaited opinion, Bostock expanded the definition of sex in...more
On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, affirmatively answered the long-awaited question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”)...more
On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that refusing to hire, firing, or otherwise subjecting an individual to workplace discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity is the equivalent of...more
Conducting business in the Virgin Islands poses unique challenges not often encountered in the states, but also unique opportunities. This 20-part series will offer tips for doing business in the U.S. Virgin Islands, covering...more