Redlining Isn’t What it Used To Be
DE Under 3: EEOC’s Settlement with the SSA is a Cautionary Tale for Private Sector Employers & Federal Government Contractors
DE Under 3: EEOC Consent Decree Illustrated Enforcement Stance Regarding Natural Hair Texture & Race Discrimination
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
The Labor Law Insider: Recent U.S. Supreme Court, NLRB Decisions Highlight Labor Issues in Higher Education
DE Under 3: The Harvard and UNC Case Decisions Are Coming
An Update on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Consumer Financial Services Industry, with Special Guest Naomi Mercer, Senior Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, American Bankers
FTC Consent Order With Auto Dealer and Proposed Rule - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast | Episode 55: Brendah Mpanga, BNM Advocates | Uganda
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
DE Under 3: EEOC & DOJ Technical Guidance for Employer’s AI Use; Upcoming EEOC Hearing; Event for Mental Health in the Workplace
NFL’s Rooney Rule: The Flores Discrimination Suit’s Impact on DEI initiatives [More with McGlinchey Ep. 38]
Podcast - Discussing the Mission of Black Women's Health Imperative with CEO Linda Goler Blount
From Tulsa to Now: Dismantling Systemic Racism in Our Financial Systems
“Listen In” to Allison Manswell as She Talks About Her Impactful Book on Race Relations
Meet the Engaging George Washington as He Shares His Views on Leadership and More
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot on Policing Reform
The Making of Overhaul of Advocacy, a Resource Database for Allies and Antiracists: On Record PR
Leaders Moving 2020 Forward with Tony Upshaw and Karl Reid
How an Am Law 200 Firm is Working Towards Solutions to 2020’s Challenges with Jeremy Sacks: On Record PR
Die Ampelkoalition hat in ihrem Koalitionsvertrag die Ausweitung des Anwendungsbereichs des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG) vorgesehen. Ob dies in dieser Legislaturperiode tatsächlich noch geschieht, ist fraglich....more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of religion (as well as race, color, sex, and national origin), and it...more
A new Maryland law allows the attorney general to seek equitable relief and fines of up to $25,000, as well as fees, against civil rights violators. The Maryland General Assembly passed during its recent session SB 540,...more
New protections from discrimination are set to become a reality in Pennsylvania. On December 8, 2022, Pennsylvania’s Independent Regulatory Review Commission approved a proposed regulation from the Pennsylvania Human...more
Using the regulatory process rather than legislation, Pennsylvania will substantially expand in 2023 protections against discrimination in employment, education, public accommodations and housing. On December 8, 2022, the...more
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has unanimously approved a resolution condemning the recent violence, harassment, and acts of bias against Jewish individuals in the United States, the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Laws protecting individuals from discrimination and harassment in the workplace are expanding rapidly at the state and local levels, while the federal landscape remains unclear regarding LGBTQ rights. ...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: With uncertain times and profound changes anticipated for the EEOC, employers anxiously await what enforcement litigation the EEOC has in store. Although 2016 showed a marked decline in filings, fiscal year...more
Last week, the world mourned Cecil the Lion, and all eyes were on the Minnesota dentist who killed him. The scrutiny of the dentist unearthed, among other things, a sexual harassment complaint lodged against him by a former...more
Federal Court Denies Meat Processor's Motion for Summary Judgment on Agency's Title VII Race, National Origin, and Religious Discrimination and Retaliation Case - DENVER - A federal judge has denied, in its entirety, the...more
Who does it apply to: The law applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. What is the issue: Title VII was passed in the 1960s to protect against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national...more
Landmark Legislation Still Holds Significance for Millions of Americans - TAMPA, Fla. - Several government agencies will join forces on July 2 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's...more
Phoenix Business law firm Jaburg Wilk's employment law attorney Kraig Marton discusses at will employment, various types of employment cases, types of discrimination and how employment cases are assessed....more
CHICAGO - Rizza Cadillac, Inc. of Tinley Park, Ill., a suburb south of Chicago, violated federal law by encouraging a work environment which was hostile and offensive to Muslim and Arab sales staff, the U.S. Equal Employment...more
Employee Must Prove That Illegal Retaliation Was The "But For" Cause Of Adverse Job Action Under Title VII - University of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3155234 (2013) - The United States...more
Employers are well aware that poorly performing employees may lodge baseless retaliation claims as a smokescreen to interfere with legitimate discipline....more
Excerpt from Supreme Court Sides With Employers in Title VII Suits - Capping off a term of big decisions with employer-friendly results, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on two major employment issues in a pair of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday that a plaintiff alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that retaliation was the “but-for” reason for an adverse employment...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heightened the burden of proof for employees bringing retaliation claims under Title VII by holding that employees have to prove that the employer's desire to retaliate was...more
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court rejected a lower standard of proof for employee retaliation claims under Title VII, finding that a lower causation standard could tempt poorly performing employees to file frivolous claims...more
On June 24, 2013, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court broke its long string of pronouncing expansive standards in the context of Title VII retaliation...more
Divided Court holds that a "supervisor" must be empowered to take tangible employment actions for vicarious liability under Title VII to apply and that Title VII retaliation claims are subject to a higher "but-for" causation...more
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation case must prove that the retaliation was the "but for" cause of the employer's adverse action. University of Texas S.W. Med. Ctr. v....more
In another big win for employers today, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII retaliation cases must be proved by a “but for” standard of proof, not a lower standard that had been used in various courts before....more