#WorkforceWednesday®: New DOL Leadership, NLRB Quorum, EEOC Enforcement Priorities - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: How Will Trump’s Federal Changes Impact Employers? - Employment Law This Week®
Building Bridges – Rev. Al Sharpton’s Blueprint for Harlem’s Museum of Civil Rights
#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
The U.S. Supreme Court did not issue any merits opinions yesterday, but it did issue two orders denying cert. One of them, Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc., is potentially significant for litigants of discrimination claims under...more
As the academic year is now wrapping up, we hope that the final weeks of school have been relatively stress free, and that our clients are now looking forward to some slower summer days. Here at Franczek, we have continued to...more
Within the last two months, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the armed services have followed Trump Administration directives to narrow or eliminate protections for transgender individuals....more
On Wednesday, April 23, 2025, President Trump signed EO 14281, titled Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy (EO), stating a new Trump Administration policy “to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in...more
Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more
President Trump recently signed an Executive Order entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy“ to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)...more
On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lackey v. Stinnie that plaintiffs who gain preliminary injunctive relief before an action becomes moot do not qualify as “prevailing parties” for attorney’s fees under 42...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lackey v. Stinnie, 145 S. Ct. 659 (2025), limits the ability of civil rights litigants to recover their attorney fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, specifically...more
On April 1, 2025, the American Alliance for Equal Rights (“AAER”) filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) alleging three tax-exempt private foundations—the Gates Foundation, the Lagrant Foundation and the...more
The concept of adverse impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) is widely misunderstood. Adverse impact occurs when a seemingly neutral employment practice disproportionately (i.e. statistically) screens out...more
A recent $2.75 million settlement by Robins Kaplan LLP has drawn attention to a troubling case of deliberate indifference to medical needs at Anoka County Jail (the “Jail”). Deyonta Green, who struggled with addiction issues,...more
On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued two technical assistance guidance documents (found here and here) focused on educating “the public about how well-established civil rights...more
As summarized in detail here, President Trump’s recent executive order entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Order”) takes aim at non-compliant Diversity, Equity and Inclusion...more
On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which is a case that will determine whether a plaintiff bringing a so-called reverse discrimination claim (where, for...more
The Supreme Court is likely to soon rule that majority-group plaintiffs must meet the same pre-trial evidentiary burden applicable to minority-group plaintiffs – and nothing more – in workplace discrimination claims under...more
On March 5, 2025, the National Education Association (NEA) and its New Hampshire affiliate (NEA-NH) sued the U.S. Department of Education, challenging a recently issued “Dear Colleague Letter” (DCL) that informed schools that...more
Since 1973, federal courts reviewing claims of employment discrimination have used a framework first established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonnell Douglas decision. Under this framework, plaintiffs must show a prima facie...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that could alter the legal landscape for employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, which questioned whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly decided that a heterosexual plaintiff should have...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. This case that could significantly impact the standards for proving employment discrimination claims under Title...more
On March 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) released a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document in connection with the February 14 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL). This document aims to clarify how...more
Just as employers are reconsidering their approach to DEI and the myriad of potential risks such policies could present under current administration enforcement priorities, the Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case...more
In a recent oral argument, the Justices seemed largely aligned with the plaintiff’s position that majority and historically disadvantaged groups should face the same prima facie test under Title VII....more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, an employment discrimination lawsuit that focused on a reverse discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
This is part one of a series of executive orders related to health care. Transgender Care - Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation...more