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 WeekÂŽ
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Biden Administration Quick Take â Three Employment Law Initiatives Weâre 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 WeekÂŽ
[WEBINAR] Labor & Employment Law: What Changed in 2017
Employment Law This WeekÂŽ: Title VII & Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Joint-Employer Test, Dodd-Frank Protections, Equal Pay Lawsuit
II-26 â Superbowl Concerns, Tax Reform/MeToo, Restrictive Covenant Crimes, and Expanded Religious Discrimination Theories
II-25 â Top 10 New Yearâs Resolutions for Employers in 2018
Employment Law This WeekÂŽ: Sexual Orientation Discrimination, NLRB Nominees, Trumpâs 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 WeekÂŽ: 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
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
Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court firmly held that âsexâ refers only to âoneâs biological classification as male or femaleâ under the provision of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibiting discrimination in public...more
On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the notion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (âTitle VIIâ) imposes special requirements on a âmajority-groupâ plaintiff trying to make an initial...more
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that Title VIIâs 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 (âTitle VIIâ) 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 âthe standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a...more
The closely watched battle over âreverse discriminationâ claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concluded Wednesday with the U.S. Supreme Courtâs decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The...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
The US Supreme Court just unanimously ruled that plaintiffs alleging workplace discrimination under Title VII are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard just because they have âmajority-groupâ status....more
On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the âbackground circumstancesâ test previously applied by several federal circuits in âreverse discriminationâ cases....more
The U.S. Supreme Court set the record straight on June 5, 2025 â reminding employers that all employees are created equal when it comes to Title VII litigation in federal court. The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of...more
The Supreme Court is likely to soon rule that majority-group plaintiffs must meet the same pre-trial evidentiary burden applicable to minority-group plaintiffs â and nothing more â in workplace discrimination claims under...more
On October 25, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (âEEOCâ) issued a press release stating it was suing a Michigan restaurant for discrimination. The EEOC alleged Culverâs violated federal law when firing a...more
In its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees based on their...more
On July 17, 2024, the U.S. District for the Northern District of Texas rejected the State of Texasâs request that it vacate recent guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on harassment and...more
On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its new Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the Guidance), the first update to its Guidance in over 20 years. Among the many...more
A federal appeals court recently held that an employerâs health insurance plan wrongly excluded coverage for gender-affirming care in violation of federal civil rights law â offering a warning to employers across the country...more
For the first time in 25 years, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. Employers should review existing anti-harassment policies and trainings...more
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published its long-awaited final guidance on harassment in the workplace on April 29, 2024, several months following its released proposed guidance in September, which we...more
On March 29, 2024, the EEOC announced new guidance addressing harassment in the workplace, which goes into effect immediately. This guidance consolidates the EEOCâs previous guidance and incorporates new topics reflecting...more
In its seminal decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sex. Employers are...more
On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a long-anticipated update to its enforcement guidance on harassment in the workplace. The update comes almost 25 years after EEOC last...more