#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]
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
This school year is off to a busy start as administrators wrestle with implementation of the new 2024 Title IX regulations. Schools are busy conducting training, making important decisions about policy, and navigating the...more
In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that transferring an employee to a new position with the same rank and pay may constitute an adverse action under Title VII. The recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis,...more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn its landmark 1984 Chevron decision, three district courts have struck down provisions in nondiscrimination regulations under the Affordable Care Act that prohibit...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
Employer's DEI mandate scores a win. A white guy refused to take his employer's mandatory "unconscious bias" training, and he was fired. He sued the employer for retaliation, his lawsuit was dismissed, and this week an...more
“Chevron is overruled.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its companion case, Relentless v. Department of Commerce, will have enormous effects on the healthcare sector....more
I have blogged annually about the Appellate Judges Education Institute’s Summit. This year it is being held in Boston from November 14 through 17. As in prior years, it’s going to be a dilly. The program will be pure...more
On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its new Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the Guidance), the first update to its Guidance in over 20 years. Among the many...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that to sustain a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), plaintiffs do...more
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis appears to have expanded the universe of “adverse employment actions” that could support an employee’s discrimination claim. The Supreme Court stated in...more
Following the death of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter protests against racial inequity in 2020, many companies increased their commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), as well as their external...more
Thus far, 2024 has been a whirlwind of new employment rules, statutes, guidance, and decisions for employers to grapple with and account for in their businesses. Among these decisions are a handful of rulings from the Supreme...more
This week, we’re recapping recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions and their impact on employers across the country. Employment-Related Decisions The Supreme Court is closing out its term, and the justices have handed...more
In a recent decision, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining whether an adverse employment action is a sufficient basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII of the...more
A federal District Court in Ohio recently ruled that a white litigant did not have standing to assert a discrimination claim against a contest that had provided grants to Black-owned businesses. The decision in Roberts v....more
Under the recent Supreme Court Ruling of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, employees no longer need to suffer “significant” harm to state a claim of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”)....more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the threshold for employees to demonstrate discrimination under Title VII, the Sixth Circuit has expanded the scope of what employers...more
A Title VII plaintiff does not need to demonstrate that the injury alleged satisfies a significance test, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. ...more
In a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, a police sergeant alleged that she was transferred from one job to a less desirable job in the police department because of her sex....more
In what may be considered a “win” for employees, the United States Supreme Court recently clarified that an employee challenging a job transfer as “discriminatory” need only prove that they sustained “some” harm due to the...more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more
Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against employees on the basis of their gender, race, national origin, color or religion. Nowhere does it provide an express definition of discrimination or establish a standard a...more
Employment lawsuits typically involve allegations of an employer’s wrongdoing – claims that the employer or its agents intended to and did mistreat, discriminate, or retaliate against employees. However, these “bad actor”...more