DE Under 3: EEOC’s Transgender Guidance Blocked by Texas Federal District Court
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC's LGBTQ+ Guidance Blocked, Employer COVID-19 Update, NYC Prepares for Pay Transparency Law - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: Data Gathering & Data Delivery
DE Under 3: EEOC Studies Showing Online Mediation Preferred; Transgender Title VII Protections; May 2022 Employment Situation
DE Under 3: Agency Budget Requests, Transgender Day of Visibility traction, and the fall of Trump OFCCP’s “Four Pillars”
Looking back at 2021 and ahead to 2022
Helping the Transgender Community Through The Name Change Project with Samantha Rothaus of Davis+Gilbert: On Record PR
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Decision on LGBTQ Employees, EEOC on Older Workers Returning to Work - Employment Law This Week®
II-25 – Top 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Employers in 2018
Episode 25: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part II: Other Emerging EEOC Trends + Takeaways
I-12: Update on the DOL's New OT Rules, and Part 2 of My Interview with Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Employment Law This Week: Joint-Employer Guidance Rescinded, NYC’s “Fair Workweek” Bills, ADA and Gender Dysphoria, Philadelphia’s Salary History Law
Employment Law This Week: Wellness Program Regulations, Cumulative Liquidated Damages, ACA Transgender Discrimination Rules, Form I-9
Employment Law This Week: Top Issues of 2016 – DTSA, Non-Competes, Paid Sick Leave, Transgender Law, Overtime, NLRB Decisions
Employment Law This Week®: White House on Non-Competes, Transgender Bathrooms, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, Freelancer Wage Protection
Employment Law This Week®: Transgender Case, “Labor Peace” Agreements, EEOC’s Pay Data Proposal, Parental Leave Requests
LXBN This Week Ep. 2: EEOC on Criminal Records & Transgender Discrimination, BP Oil Spill Arrest, AZ Immigration Law at SCOTUS
In its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees based on their...more
Monday, May 13, 2024: Coalition of 18 Republican States’ Attorney Generals Filed Suit to Challenge EEOC’s Harassment Guidance - A coalition of 18 Republican state attorney generals (“AGs”), led by Tennessee Attorney...more
“The rock and the hard place.” How often do employers find themselves here? If employers have LGBTQ employees in certain states, they are now bumping up against the “rock” of federal laws, like Title VII and Title IX, and the...more
Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which clarified the standard for undue hardship in religious accommodation cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a federal district court in Indiana...more
If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more
A recent Statement of Interest filed earlier this week by the Department of Justice in a federal prisoner lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia should serve as an important reminder...more
When I reflect on the relationship that our firm has with our clients, I’m most proud of the fact that you can always count on us. That often means defending complex litigation, steering you through regulatory threats,...more
On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to weigh in on whether gender dysphoria can qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), allowing to stand the Fourth Circuit’s...more
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer in a religious discrimination case involving a teacher who refused to call transgender students by their chosen names....more
This Insights blog addresses the aftermath of the monumental U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020) and the ongoing collision of the right to religious freedom enjoyed by...more
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County,140 S. Ct. 1731, 1754 (2020) that expanded the prohibition against sex discrimination under Title VII (“Title VII”) of the Civil Rights Act to include discrimination on...more
Join Hinshaw and the LGBTQ+ Lawyers Association of Los Angeles on June 23, 2021, as we commemorate June Pride Month with a webinar featuring practical guidance on LGBTQ+ employment and workplace issues. This one-hour CLE...more
As one of his first actions in office, President Joe Biden has issued an executive order ensuring that last year’s US Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is applied immediately and efficiently by all federal...more
Please join Nelson Mullins and LGBTQ+ leaders as we kick-off Atlanta Pride weekend with an online discussion of the legal and political battles ahead in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision and rethinking...more
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia marks a turning point and milestone victory for the LGBTQ+ community. The decision will impact the fight to end discrimination based on gender...more
On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a watershed decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, holding, for the first time, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits discrimination in the...more
You have probably seen a lot of coronavirus news alerts lately, but as a car dealer, you already know that germs are not the only things that can cause headaches. Virus or no virus, the law is still going to change and...more
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) - The question for the United States Supreme Court in this (and two companion cases) was whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is violated by an...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
On June 15, 2020, in a landmark 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual...more
When the Supreme Court recently concluded that Title VII protects LGBTQ employees from discrimination based on their “sex” in its Bostock v. Clayton County opinion, many schools immediately asked: “What does this mean for...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
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) - Summary: Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity....more
On June 15, 2020, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, found its place in history as a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case for LGBTQ+ rights in the workplace. A long-awaited opinion, Bostock expanded the definition of sex in...more
On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, affirmatively answered the long-awaited question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”)...more