News & Analysis as of

Statutory Interpretation Bostock v Clayton County Georgia LGBTQ

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

HHS’ Withdrawal of 2022 Guidance Raises Questions about Coverage for Gender-Affirming Care

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In a move with potentially significant implications for entities subject to the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has reversed course and now contends that Section 1557 of the Affordable...more

Pullman & Comley - School Law

OCR Doubles Down on Position that Title IX Equity Rules Do Not Protect Transgender Students

On January 8, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued a memorandum containing its interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton and its lack of effect on OCR’s interpretation of Title IX.  The U.S....more

Franczek P.C.

Can a Transgender Female Student compete on a Girls’ Sports Team? Supreme Court Justices Address the Question in LGBT Employment...

Franczek P.C. on

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 8 in three closely watched cases addressing whether Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of … sex,” covers discrimination based on LGBT...more

3 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide