Supreme Court Miniseries: Religious Accommodation at Work
DE Under 3: New Controversial Proposed Rule Affecting Title VII
California Employment News: Best Practices for Office Holiday Celebrations
DE Under 3: Employment Poster Requirements & the U.S. DOJ’s First-Ever Criminal Anti-Trust Prosecution
Employment Law Now VI-116-Top 10 Employment Issues To Consider For The Summer Kick-Off
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Enforcement Uptick, New York Limits Private Confidential Settlements, Anti-Harassment Training for Virtual World - Employment Law This Week®
Return to Work: Employer-Mandated COVID-19 Vaccination Policies and Accommodating Employee Disabilities and Religious Beliefs
#WorkforceWednesday: The Biden EEOC, New Religious Guidance, and Diversity Training Ban Repealed - Employment Law This Week
Vaccines in the time of COVID [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 15]
II-26 – Superbowl Concerns, Tax Reform/MeToo, Restrictive Covenant Crimes, and Expanded Religious Discrimination Theories
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
Part 1 of 2: My Sit-Down Interview With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Episode 08: Chat With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Employment Law This Week®: Sexual Orientation Bias, Religious Discrimination, At-Will Employment Provision, Class Arbitration
Annual Labor & Employment Update 2013
What is at will employment law?
Is Veganism a Religion? It May Well Be for Employers and Their Employees
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
As the United States Supreme Court wraps up its term, employers should take note of three decisions issued this past Monday, June 24....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
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
At our recent Labor and Employment Law Seminar, we highlighted a number of outstanding legal cases that have the potential to have a significant impact on employer liability. ...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued two important opinions for employers facing liability and retaliation claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")....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