Employment Law Now VIII-149 - Part 2 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
Employment Law Now VIII-148- Part 1 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
The New EEOC Guidelines on Workplace Harassment
EEO-1 Filing After June 4: What to Do Now, and How to Prepare for Next Year - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: EEOC’s Settlement with the SSA is a Cautionary Tale for Private Sector Employers & Federal Government Contractors
The Burr Broadcast: Key Differences Between PWFA and ADA
DOL’s Expanded Overtime Salary Limits, EEOC’s Sexual Harassment Guidance, NY’s Mandatory Paid Prenatal Leave - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Expands Title VII, EEOC’s Final PWFA Rule, AI Screening Tools - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VIII-142 - Federal Agency Update (Part 1 of 2)
DE Under 3: EEOC Consent Decree Illustrated Enforcement Stance Regarding Natural Hair Texture & Race Discrimination
DE Under 3: OMB Announced Finalized Overhaul to Federal Race & Ethnicity Data Collection Standards
The Burr Morning Show: Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
DE Under 3: Biden "Hits the Brakes" on Non-Defense Discretionary Budgets for Federal Agencies in FY 2025 Budget Proposal
DE Under 3: Big Budget Opponents Again Stop a Final Federal FY 2024 Budget, Congress Keeps Agency Spending to FY 2023 Levels
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 2: Labor Dispute Mediations with Drew Rogers, Senior Federal Mediator with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Part 2
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 1: Labor Dispute Mediations with Drew Rogers, Senior Federal Mediator with the EEOC
Employment Law Now VII-139 - An Interview With an Employee-Side Attorney on L&E Issues
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Expands "Joint Employer" Definition, Senate Confirms Agency Heads, and U.S. Regulates AI - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VII-138 - An Interview With the DOL, EEOC, and NLRB
It’s #WorkforceWednesday! This week, we discuss how employers are navigating COVID-19 vaccination policies and new worker organization and whistleblowing risks. Legal Considerations for COVID-19 Vaccination Policies (see...more
On a matter of first impression, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit, in Durham v. Rural/Metro Corp., applied the test for indirect evidence of intentional pregnancy discrimination enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Young v. UPS....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: With summer months almost upon us, here are some dress code tips and tricks for employers to ensure both employee compliance with relaxed summer dress codes and increased employee motivation and morale. We...more
Question: Over the summer, we heard a lot about new guidance on pregnancy discrimination. What do we need to know to ensure we are complying with local, state, and federal laws on pregnancy discrimination?...more
Religious institutions commonly make payments to or receive payments directly or indirectly from governmental agencies for services rendered; e.g., day cares that benefit from public scholarships, hospitals that participate...more
On Monday, June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which had granted Abercrombie & Fitch (“Abercrombie”) summary judgment in a religious...more
The United States Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.The Court ruled that Abercrombie violated Title VII by refusing to...more
On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the EEOC in the well-chronicled case involving a Muslim job applicant who the EEOC claimed was illegally denied employment because of her religion. In EEOC v. Abercrombie &...more
Use of a Dress Code Gone Bad - Employers catering to the public, or relying upon in-person customer contacts to promote their businesses, have frequently established employee "dress codes" to regularize the appearance of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its long awaited decision in the "Looks Policy" case, and it's not terribly unexpected, but is a little scary considering the potential far reaching effects going forward. ...more
On June 1, the Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to...more
On its face EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. dealt with an employer’s refusal to hire a Muslim woman who wore a headscarf in accordance with her religion, but the Supreme Court’s decision affects many more workplace...more
It’s the decision the employment bar has been waiting for: on June 1, 2015, in a 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the EEOC in the religious discrimination case of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., which...more
In a ruling handed down yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a religious discrimination case against the popular clothing retailer, Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,...more
In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2015), seven justices of the U.S. Supreme Court found that Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by...more
On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a much anticipated ruling on the Title VII religious bias claim brought by a Muslim female applicant who wore a religiously mandated headscarf to her interview and was...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has revived a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by a part-time employee who had been placed on unpaid leave while she was expecting a baby – a decision that puts employers on notice that they...more
Examples of pregnancy-related impairments employers should consider and some common ADA accommodation requests Does the EEOC expect preferential treatment for pregnant employees? Originally published in Inside...more
On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., which centered on whether UPS unlawfully discriminated against a pregnant employee by denying her a light-duty...more
On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court reinstated a pregnancy discrimination suit that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously decided in favor of the employer. ...more
The Supreme Court recently clarified the framework that applies to certain claims for accommodations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (the “PDA”). The case, Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., was a partial victory...more
What do employers need to know about the Supreme Court’s pregnancy accommodation decision last week in Young v. United Parcel Service?...more
The United States Supreme Court recently established a new test to evaluate whether an employer discriminates against a pregnant employee under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) when it denies an accommodation or...more
In an eagerly awaited ruling expected to provide greater guidance on an employer’s obligation to accommodate pregnant employees, last week the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard an employee must meet to state a...more
A divided U.S. Supreme Court decided last week that employers covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (part of Title VII) may be required to make reasonable accommodations for work restrictions caused by pregnancy and...more