#WorkforceWednesday®: EEOC/DOJ Joint DEI Guidance, EEOC Letters to Law Firms, OFCCP Retroactive DEI Enforcement - Employment Law This Week®
False Claims Act Insights - Can DE&I Initiatives Lead to Potential False Claims Act Liability?
How to Comply with Trump’s Executive Order, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
2025 Outlook: The Department of Health and Human Services Under the Second Trump Administration – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday®: How Will Trump’s Federal Changes Impact Employers? - Employment Law This Week®
DE Talk | If It’s Not in Writing, It Never Happened: Applicant Tracking & Recordkeeping Strategies to Ensure OFCCP Compliance
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 28: Construction Compliance with Joan Moore and Mim Munzel of The Arbor Consulting Group
Webinar: Is Your DEI Policy Setting You Up for a Lawsuit?
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Wants Shuttered Starbucks Stores Reopened, Big Tech Retreats from DEI Programs, and Employers Scrap College Requirements - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: The Ripple Effect of the Supreme Court’s SFFA Ruling for Diversity in the Workplace - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VII-134-Panel Discussion on Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Ruling and the Impact on Employer DEI Programs
DE Under 3: How to Lawfully Engage in Race-Based Employment Decisions
The Labor Law Insider: Recent U.S. Supreme Court, NLRB Decisions Highlight Labor Issues in Higher Education
Business Better Podcast Episode: Is DEI at Risk? Considerations on the US Supreme Court Ruling Against Affirmative Action Programs
DE Under 3: 4 Implications Impacting Federal Contractors & Employers Following the SCOTUS Decision in the Harvard & UNC Cases
DE Under 3: SCOTUS Finds “Race-Based” Admissions Practices At Harvard and UNC Unlawful
DE Under 3: The Harvard and UNC Case Decisions Are Coming
DE Talk | Top 5 Actions to Take After You Complete Your Affirmative Action Plan
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
The Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) recently made updates to several documents and definitions for Minnesota government contractors. This is the third article in a series focused on the compliance responsibilities...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 2025 WL 1583264, (U.S. June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that majority group plaintiffs (in this instance, a heterosexual plaintiff) do not need to meet...more
The Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) recently updated several documents on its website for Minnesota government contractors. This is the second article in a series focused on the compliance responsibilities of...more
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor released their 2026 Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJ) on May 30, 2025, providing valuable information related to the EEOC’s enforcement...more
The Trump Administration has announced plans to “eliminate” the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”), the agency currently responsible for enforcing affirmative action and...more
On 5 June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that, in order to establish a Title VII claim, a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority group” is not required to show “background...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, ruling that the “background circumstances” test—which applies a heighted...more
Can members of a majority group be subject to a heightened pleading standard for their Title VII discrimination claims? The United States Supreme Court answered this question with a unanimous “no” in Ames v. Ohio Department...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not...more
The Supreme Court has voted unanimously to end a Circuit Court split regarding whether members of a “majority group” have additional evidentiary burdens when bringing a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for...more
Key Takeaways: - The Supreme Court held that Title VII does not permit courts to impose a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs alleging disparate treatment. - Some lower courts have required...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, concluding that courts cannot require members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the split among federal circuits and held that the same standard used to evaluate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to all...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs bringing discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) cannot be required to satisfy a heightened evidentiary...more
We have seen, a mere few months into President Trump’s second term, a remarkably transformational set of priorities across the federal government, which have had dramatic impacts on the private sector generally and public...more
A cautionary tale for employers. EDITOR’S NOTE: Our Affirmative Action Alert blog has been re-titled EEO Compliance Dispatch. Many companies proactively analyze employee compensation to ensure that any disparities...more
DECISION ALERT: AMES V. OHIO DEP’T OF YOUTH SVCS. INTRODUCTION: On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that so-called “reverse discrimination” claims—discrimination claims...more
On May 22, the Supreme Court in Kousisis, et al., v. United States, affirmed the convictions of a painting subcontractor and its owner (defendants) under the federal wire fraud statute for conspiring to defraud the Department...more
In March 2025, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) updated its annual compliance report (ACR) without substantive changes. Two months later, the MDHR has issued a new two-part ACR with significant updates. ...more
As widely expected, the Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services confirmed that a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination under Title VII cannot be held to a different,...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting the “background circumstances” requirement multiple circuit courts of appeals have applied to Title...more
Just today, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a contentious disagreement between courts regarding the burden of proof required to bring a disparate treatment claim under Title VII. While the majority of appeals courts in the...more
New Department of Defense Policy Memo Imposes Sweeping Restrictions on Consulting, Management, Advisory Services, and Contractor Utilization - The Department of Defense (DoD) has issued a significant policy memorandum “to...more
The White House has released the President’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal, along with a technical supplement appendix with detailed budget estimates. Of particular interest to federal contractors, the proposal seeks to...more