DE Under 3: EEOC & DOJ Technical Guidance for Employer’s AI Use; Upcoming EEOC Hearing; Event for Mental Health in the Workplace
Episode 24: Corporate Oppression Doctrine Meets Sex Discrimination: A Conversation with Professor Meredith Miller
College Esports Programs: What You Need To Know
Framing the American Past to Better Understand Women and Gender History with UC Davis Professors Ellen Hartigan -O’Conner and Lisa Materson: On Record PR
#WorkforceWednesday: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Leaves Behind a Legacy - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Decision on LGBTQ Employees, EEOC on Older Workers Returning to Work - Employment Law This Week®
This Week in FCPA-Episode 142 - the What’s in Your Supply Chain? edition
Investigating Harassment Claims
Episode 25: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part II: Other Emerging EEOC Trends + Takeaways
Episode 24: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part I: Employers' "Superstar Harassment" Problem
I-12: Update on the DOL's New OT Rules, and Part 2 of My Interview with Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Part 1 of 2: My Sit-Down Interview With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Stealth Lawyer: Clare Dalton, Acupuncturist
Employers often place employees on paid administrative leave while they investigate accusations of employee misconduct or make decisions regarding the employees’ employment. Traditionally, most federal courts agreed that this...more
A federal appeals court recently held that an employer’s health insurance plan wrongly excluded coverage for gender-affirming care in violation of federal civil rights law – offering a warning to employers across the country...more
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments in the federal courts of appeal in the last month. Seventh Circuit Finds EEOC Failed to Prove Racial Harassment in Multi-Employee...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employee challenging a job transfer in an unlawful employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must show that the...more
To prevail on a discrimination claim under Title VII and similar anti-discrimination laws, the employee bringing suit must prove that he or she suffered an “adverse employment action” because of a legally protected...more
The Supreme Court may soon clarify whether an employer’s decision to transfer an employee to a lateral job – with no change in pay or benefits – violates federal civil rights law if it’s done for discriminatory reasons....more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh has spoken, and employers that once relied exclusively on McDonnell Douglas might need to rethink their litigation strategy in employment-discrimination cases. On December 12,...more
On December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri—a potentially pivotal case concerning whether Title VII requires plaintiffs to establish a...more
A federal appeals court has made it easier for plaintiffs to bring employment discrimination lawsuits, but failed to offer clear guidance on how employers can adjust policies to minimize litigation risk. The en banc...more
On Oct. 2, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released proposed enforcement guidance on harassment in the workplace, and the proposed guidance has been receiving quite a bit of attention. This begs the...more
The Supreme Court just began a new term, and we’re watching several cases that will likely have a big impact on the workplace. Specifically, the Court will weigh in on whether someone can “test” violations of federal...more
When is a job transfer not just a transfer? The Supreme Court will soon decide whether lateral job transfers, with no change in pay or benefits, violates federal civil rights law if done for discriminatory reasons. Read on...more
On July 31, 2023, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals revived a Christian teacher’s religious discrimination lawsuit over his refusal to refer to transgender students by their names and pronouns with which they identified. ...more
The Supreme Court’s blockbuster decisions last term dominated the headlines – and many rulings will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an...more
In Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that religious employers may be exempt from Title VII requirements concerning sexual...more
On August 18, 2022, U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker issued a preliminary injunction blocking part of Florida’s House Bill (H.B.) 7, known as the Individual Freedom Act (IFA), which prohibits employers from requiring...more
Executive Summary: On June 3, 2022, an en banc panel (meaning all of the judges on the court participated) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a landmark decision holding that Title VII does not require...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: As 2022 begins, we are pleased to present our annual selections for the five most intriguing developments in EEOC litigation during 2021, as well as our annual report on developments and trends in...more
In a new opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Maner v. Dignity Health, the plaintiff was a male design engineer who was laid off due to performance and budget cut issues. He alleged that he had been discriminated...more
This week (specifically June 15, 2021) marked the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, which outlawed sexual orientation or transgender status employment...more
In its Oncale decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that same-sex sexual harassment violates Title VII’s sex discrimination prohibition. In that case, the court said that plaintiffs can demonstrate same-sex harassment...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The EEOC recently released its enforcement and litigation statistics for Fiscal Year 2020. Notably, the statistics indicate that 2020 saw a dramatic drop in filed charges, with the lowest number of charges...more
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, covered employers may not...more
On Monday, June 15, 2020, the US Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender, gay and lesbian employees (and prospective employees) from workplace...more
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition of sex discrimination encompasses discrimination against gay and transgender individuals. Justice Neil...more