Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 504: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motions for New Trial (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment
What Litigants Need to Know about Summary Judgment
JONES DAY TALKS®: Tiffany v. Costco Raises Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting Questions
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Examining FDA’s Enforcement Authority Over Stem Cell Clinics and Compounders
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025) - Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged under Title VII that she had been denied a management promotion and demoted based on her sexual...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more
Key Takeaways - - The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to show additional “background...more
A unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services clarified that Title VII plaintiffs who are members of a majority group have the same standard for establishing their claim as a plaintiff who is...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
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
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
Brome v. California Highway Patrol, 44 Cal. App. 5th 786 (2020) - Jay Brome sued the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) after resigning as a law enforcement officer, claiming he had been subjected to harassment and...more
Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020) - The employer must pay minimum wages to employees for time spent on mandated layovers where the employer’s policy imposes constraints on employees’ movements...more
In Wittmer v. Phillips 66, Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit wasted no time stating the Fifth Circuit’s position on whether sexual orientation or transgender status are protected classes under Title VII – they are not....more
Lest you think that no one can win a hostile work environment claim, we have some positive news from the Second Circuit. In Russell v. New York University, et al., the court issued a summary order (which does not have...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In its recent decision in EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., No. 16-2424, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit has sent the strong...more
Timely Topics - By Shannon B. Hartsfield - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Jan. 18, 2018, the creation of a new division within its Office for Civil Rights (OCR). OCR is described as...more
In Lampley, et al. v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that sex stereotyping can form the basis of a sex discrimination claim when the complaining party is gay, but should not be...more