#WorkforceWednesday® - Key SCOTUS Decisions This Term for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
Webinar: Is Your DEI Policy Setting You Up for a Lawsuit?
DE Under 3: Title VII Prohibits Discriminatory Job Transfers Even Without Significant Harm, U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Ruled
DE Under 3: EEOC Consent Decree Illustrated Enforcement Stance Regarding Natural Hair Texture & Race Discrimination
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Enforcement Plan, California Expands Paid Sick Leave, and Strikes Across the Country - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: U.S. EEOC Announced Year-End Litigation Round-Up for Fiscal Year 2023
#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: Title VII Actionable Adverse Employment Actions Not Limited to Only “Ultimate” Employment Decisions
Supreme Court Miniseries: Religious Accommodation at Work
Employment Law Now VII-133 - Hot Summer Employment Law Developments
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Introduces Heightened Standard for Religious Accommodation, Rules Against Affirmative Action, Protects “Expressive” Services - Employment Law This Week®
Business Better Podcast Episode: Is DEI at Risk? Considerations on the US Supreme Court Ruling Against Affirmative Action Programs
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®
Burr Broadcast September 20, 2022
Extending Title VII to Federal Judicial Employees | Aliza Shatzman
Can Employers Require COVID-19 Vaccinations?
Vaccines in the time of COVID [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 15]
Settles Federal Charges Workforce Services Provider in Southern New Mexico Failed to Grant Medical Leave and Fired Employee - SOCORRO, N.M. – Res-Care and Equus Workforce Solutions (jointly referred to as Res-Care/Equus),...more
This is part four of a series examining the most topical changes applicable to higher education contained in the new Title IX regulations released by the U.S. Department of Education on April 19, 2024. Changes applicable only...more
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published its long-awaited final guidance on harassment in the workplace on April 29, 2024, several months following its released proposed guidance in September, which we...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
Department Store Chain Cut Hours and Fired a High-Performing, Longtime Employee After Discrimination Complaint, Federal Agency Charges - ATLANTA – Dillard’s, Inc., a national department store chain based in Little Rock,...more
PHOENIX – Circle K Stores Inc. has entered into a nationwide agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to resolve disability, pregnancy and retaliation discrimination charges, the federal agency...more
Employees Subjected to Religious Discrimination and Retaliation - DALLAS – Tim Shepherd M.D., P.A. and Bridges Healthcare, P.A., doing business as Shepherd Healthcare, a medical practice in Flower Mound, Texas, will pay...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Vaccinations have been widely debated over the past few years, leaving employers unclear about their obligations to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs conflict with them. Recently the U.S. Court...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously resolved a long-running dispute about procedure under Title VII and sent a message to employers that it is important to pay attention and act promptly when faced with a Title...more
Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more
Company Punished Employees for Complaining About Mistreatment, Federal Agency Charges - OXFORD, Miss. - A tool company operating in Water Valley, Miss., violated federal civil rights laws when it denied an employee a...more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing precondition to suit is not a jurisdictional requirement and is instead a procedural prescription that is subject to forfeiture, refusing to...more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (U.S. June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the charge-filing requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not jurisdictional. The case...more
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States - Fort Bend County v. Davis - has sparked conversations about whether a current or former employee must file a complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a split among federal appellate courts dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file an administrative charge with the Equal...more
Recently, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a jurisdictional question: If a plaintiff fails to exhaust her remedies by first filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that the requirement that a plaintiff exhaust his/her administrative remedies before filing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a mandatory...more
Welcome to June! As we head into the summer, the employment law world continues to heat up! We have rounded up the most recent developments impacting employers for your summer reading pleasure here....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: New decision from the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file with the EEOC or other state agencies is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, which means it can be...more
The Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the charge-filing precondition to suit of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver, not a jurisdictional bar to...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for employees to file an administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a claim for discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, and retaliation, but it requires that a plaintiff file a charge of...more