#WorkforceWednesday® - Key SCOTUS Decisions This Term for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
Webinar: Is Your DEI Policy Setting You Up for a Lawsuit?
DE Under 3: Title VII Prohibits Discriminatory Job Transfers Even Without Significant Harm, U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Ruled
DE Under 3: EEOC Consent Decree Illustrated Enforcement Stance Regarding Natural Hair Texture & Race Discrimination
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Enforcement Plan, California Expands Paid Sick Leave, and Strikes Across the Country - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: U.S. EEOC Announced Year-End Litigation Round-Up for Fiscal Year 2023
#WorkforceWednesday: The Ripple Effect of the Supreme Court’s SFFA Ruling for Diversity in the Workplace - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VII-134-Panel Discussion on Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Ruling and the Impact on Employer DEI Programs
DE Under 3: Title VII Actionable Adverse Employment Actions Not Limited to Only “Ultimate” Employment Decisions
Supreme Court Miniseries: Religious Accommodation at Work
Employment Law Now VII-133 - Hot Summer Employment Law Developments
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Introduces Heightened Standard for Religious Accommodation, Rules Against Affirmative Action, Protects “Expressive” Services - Employment Law This Week®
Business Better Podcast Episode: Is DEI at Risk? Considerations on the US Supreme Court Ruling Against Affirmative Action Programs
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®
Burr Broadcast September 20, 2022
Extending Title VII to Federal Judicial Employees | Aliza Shatzman
Can Employers Require COVID-19 Vaccinations?
Vaccines in the time of COVID [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 15]
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed legislation last week that will require Illinois employers to inform workers and job seekers about their use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology in making employment decisions. The...more
While a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit applies to Western states, it should serve as a signal for employers across the country to examine and update their recruiting and hiring policies. The split ruling by a...more
Employer's DEI mandate scores a win. A white guy refused to take his employer's mandatory "unconscious bias" training, and he was fired. He sued the employer for retaliation, his lawsuit was dismissed, and this week an...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the Court) held in Am. All. for Equal Rts. v. Fearless Fund Mgmt., LLC (Fearless Fund) that the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest (the Contest), a startup...more
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Los Jardines Institute (collectively, “NRDC”) submitted a May 30th document to EPA styled: Complaint under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Environmental Protection...more
In a case that has been closely watched by the charitable sector, on June 3, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued a decision blocking a race-based grant program that provided funds and mentorship to...more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more
“The rock and the hard place.” How often do employers find themselves here? If employers have LGBTQ employees in certain states, they are now bumping up against the “rock” of federal laws, like Title VII and Title IX, and the...more
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court held that an employee need only show “some harm” to maintain a Title VII discrimination claim against an employer for a lateral job transfer. Background - After nine...more
If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a lateral job transfer can – in certain circumstances – be an illegal adverse action and support a claim for a lawsuit for unlawful discrimination. This...more
For decades, employers have depended on the rule that transferring or reassigning an employee would not give rise to an actionable discrimination claim, as long as such an action did not “significantly” change an employee’s...more
Last week, on April 17, 2024, the US Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)...more
On April 17, 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split over the standard to apply to Title VII discrimination cases challenging job transfers, ruling that discriminatory workplace transfers are prohibited even if...more
On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer may violate Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer did...more
On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court provided an opening for workers to allege employment discrimination claims regarding job transfers based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. In Muldrow v....more
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, No. 22-193, 2024 WL 1642826 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employee alleging that an involuntary lateral job transfer constituted workplace discrimination in...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis that rejected a heightened injury standard for Title VII claims based on job transfers and held that employees alleging discrimination...more
Federal Investigation Determined Grocery Subjected Employees to Sexual Harassment and Retaliation - LOS ANGELES – Sprouts Farmers Market, a national grocery chain featuring natural foods, has settled a federal charge of...more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the standard under which a plaintiff can proceed with a claim for a discriminatory job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),...more
A group of 23 Republican AGs filed a petition for rulemaking to the EPA demanding that it amend its regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act that prohibit recipients of EPA funds from engaging in certain...more
Courts continue to explore whether the threshold for actionable “adverse employment actions” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been construed too narrowly. Upending several decades of precedent, in 2023, the...more
Settles Federal Charges That Alexandria Pharmacy Refused to Allow Pregnant Worker Emergency Medical Leave, Forcing Her to Quit - NEW ORLEANS – Pharmacy and retailer Walgreens Co. has agreed to pay $205,000 and provide...more
Keypoint: In our first regular update on the happenings of US artificial intelligence law, we provide an overview of proposed state AI-related private sector bills. Below is our first regular update on the status of US...more