Brian Goodrich and Katherine Skeele Share the Strength That Came from Being Out in Their Professional Lives
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®
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Biden Administration Quick Take – Three Employment Law Initiatives We’re Monitoring
Leaders Moving Business Forward with Alphonso David of the Human Rights Campaign
The Year Ahead: Litigation Hot Spots at a Glance
Labor & Employment Law: Vermont and Federal Legislative Update
Illegal or ill-mannered? Title VII meets Ms. Manners
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Decision on LGBTQ Employees, EEOC on Older Workers Returning to Work - Employment Law This Week®
[WEBINAR] Labor & Employment Law: What Changed in 2017
Employment Law This Week®: Title VII & Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Joint-Employer Test, Dodd-Frank Protections, Equal Pay Lawsuit
II-26 – Superbowl Concerns, Tax Reform/MeToo, Restrictive Covenant Crimes, and Expanded Religious Discrimination Theories
II-25 – Top 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Employers in 2018
Employment Law This Week®: Sexual Orientation Discrimination, NLRB Nominees, Trump’s Travel Ban, Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protections
Employment Law This Week: Fiduciary Rule Takes Effect June 9, Rescission of Persuader Rule, Title VII & Sexual Orientation, Overhauling the NLRA
Employment Law This Week®: Sexual Orientation Bias, Religious Discrimination, At-Will Employment Provision, Class Arbitration
Employment Law This Week: Sexual Orientation Discrimination Suits, Tip Pooling, Successor Liability, Trade Secrets, Workplace Solicitation
Supreme Court decisions are often the most challenging pieces of legal guidance to understand. They are rarely straightforward and usually contain so much analysis that it becomes hard to get to the bottom of what was...more
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that certain federal employment protections against sex discrimination extend to employer discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In light of this ruling,...more
On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia. At issue in Bostock was whether an employer could fire an employee for being gay or transgender without...more
The Supreme Court of the United States kicked off its 2019-2020 term on October 7, 2019, with several noteworthy cases on its docket. This term, some of the issues before the Court will likely have great historical...more
In June 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its long-awaited opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, striking down bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional and legalizing same-sex marriage in every state (135 S....more
After last month’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, employee benefit plan sponsors may wonder whether Obergefell affirmatively imposes an obligation for employers to provide health, life,...more
The Impact of National Same-Sex Marriage for Employers - Why it matters: How will employers feel the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges? The landmark ruling that the Fourteenth...more
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires all 50 states to license marriages between same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state....more
On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its long-awaited opinion in the Obergefell case, striking down bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional and legalizing same-sex marriage in every state. We posted...more
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require states to allow same-sex marriage and to...more
While the U.S. Supreme Court(the “Court”) ruled section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) unconstitutional, that does not mean that the changes for human resources departments and employee benefits plans can be...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decisions in two same-sex marriage cases. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, the Court ruled that the proponents of a popular voter initiative that reversed...more
For Canadians, yesterday’s landmark same-sex decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court probably seems ho-hum. In Ontario, it’s been over 10 years since the Court of Appeal held that the legal definition marriage cannot exclude...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The decision in United States v. Windsor means that same-sex couples who are married under state law...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of opinions favorable to the gay rights movement, ruling that married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from...more
Today the United States Supreme Court ruled, in United States v. Windsor, that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples who are legally married in...more
As the 2012 term of the U. S. Supreme Court comes to a close, the Justices left the most politically and emotionally charged decisions for last. On June 26, 2013, the Court handed down its decision striking down the federal...more
Employers: Action Required to Protect Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawsuits in light of Supreme Court Decision - Today the Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. This case...more