100 Days In: What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week® - #WorkforceWednesday®
Non-Competes Eased, Anti-DEI Rule Blocked, Contractor Rule in Limbo - Employment Law This Week® - #WorkforceWednesday®
Clocking in with PilieroMazza: Latest Developments on DEI Executive Order and Action Items before April 21 Deadline
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 49 - The Depression Episode
072: Prepare For Trump Executive Orders To Hit Your Law Firm
#WorkforceWednesday®: EEOC/DOJ Joint DEI Guidance, EEOC Letters to Law Firms, OFCCP Retroactive DEI Enforcement - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: Federal Contractors Alert - DEI Restrictions Reinstated by Appeals Court - Employment Law This Week®
State AG Pulse | DEI in the Federal and State Spotlight
ESG Essentials: What You Need To Know Now - Episode 18 - The Reshaping of ESG & DEI
Everything Compliance: Episode 151, The What is Illegal DEI Edition
#WorkforceWednesday®: Should Employers Shift Workforce Data Collection Under President Trump? - Employment Law This Week®
When DE&I Are Under Attack: On Record PR
Everything Compliance, Shout Outs and Rants: Episode 151, The What is Illegal DEI Edition
AGG Talks: Solving Employers’ Problems Podcast - Episode 5: What Employers Need to Know About DEI Policy Changes Under the Trump Administration
#WorkforceWednesday®: Workplace Law Shake-Up - DEI Challenges, NLRB Reversals, and EEOC Actions - Employment Law This Week®
False Claims Act Insights - Can DE&I Initiatives Lead to Potential False Claims Act Liability?
Terra Davis of Knobbe Martens on Fostering Psychological Safety, Inclusion and Belonging - CMO Series REPRESENTS Podcast
Understanding the New DEI Executive Order: What's the Tea in L&E?
Lynnette Espy-Williams of Cozen O’Connor on Thriving Together: Cultivating Allyship, Safety & Diversity in Law Firm Culture - CMO Series REPRESENTS Re-release
Diana Lauritson of Hogan Lovells on Color, Culture, and Leadership: Raising the Next Generation of Marketing Leaders - CMO Series REPRESENTS
In a 9-8 decision on December 10, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down Nasdaq’s efforts to promote diversity on public company boards. The case, Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC, vacated...more
On December 11, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) order approving The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC’s (Nasdaq’s) board diversity listing standards....more
On July 25, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that at least part of the basis for the currently pending legal attack on the Nasdaq’s proposed...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
A Fifth Circuit panel recently upheld Nasdaq’s diversity disclosure rules after petitioners challenged them under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Alliance For Fair Board...more
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld Nasdaq's board diversity rule, which the SEC first approved in August 2021 and was then challenged as unconstitutionally discriminatory and an improper...more
On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted,...more
Last month, on May 13, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that SB 826, which requires publicly held California corporations with a principal executive office in California to follow gender...more
The California courts have cast doubt on the legality of laws mandating the number of women and individuals from “underrepresented communities” on the boards of directors of publicly traded corporations based in California....more
California courts have now struck down the second of the state’s two board diversity laws as unconstitutional. The recent decision affects California's gender diversity requirement for certain boards of directors. In April,...more
In Crest v. Padilla, No. 19STCV27561, 2022 WL 1565613 (Cal. Super. May 13, 2022), the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (Duffy-Lewis, J.) issued a decision following a bench trial finding that Senate...more
In a little over a month’s time, the Superior Court of California (the “Superior Court”) struck down both AB 979 and SB 826, California’s two board diversity statutes. SB 826 required that a public company whose principal...more
Last Friday, the Los Angeles Superior Court in Crest et al. v. Padilla (“Crest”) held that Senate Bill 826 (“SB 826”), also known as the “Women on Boards” law, is unconstitutional. The lawsuit challenging the law was brought...more
Ruling Follows Similar Decision on Underrepresented Minority Directors in April 2022 - A California court has held that California Senate Bill 826, which required that “publicly held” corporations that listed a California...more
On May 13, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, issued a verdict following a bench trial that effectively struck down SB 826, a California statute requiring the boards of public corporations based in the...more
On May 13, 2022, the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County held that SB 826, the law requiring companies with headquarters in California to have a prescribed number of women on their boards of directors, is...more
California’s Assembly Bill 979 (California Corporations Code § 301.4) was signed into law in September 2020 and requires public corporations with principal executive offices in the state to include a specific number of people...more
On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that California Assembly Bill 979—a bill designed to increase diversity and improve the persistently low number of underrepresented groups on corporate...more
Earlier this month, a Los Angeles County Superior Court order put the brakes on one of California’s much contested board diversity requirements, a decision certain to reverberate among the business community and efforts to...more
On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County judge ruled that AB 979, which requires publicly held corporations with a principal executive office in California to have at least one member of the Board of Directors from an...more
As discussed in our previous blog, on April 1, 2022, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, Terry Green, granted summary judgment in favor of individuals represented by D.C.-based nonprofit Judicial Watch, declaring Assembly Bill...more
On April 1, 2022, Judge Terry Green of the Los Angeles Superior Court struck down California’s AB 979, which required publicly held companies based in California to have at least one board director from an “underrepresented...more
On April 1, 2022, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in a case challenging the legality of AB 979 under the California Constitution...more
A California court invalidated a state law requiring that boards of directors of public companies based in California include members from under-represented groups, including persons of several races and ethnic groups and...more
Meland v. Weber, ___ F.3d ___, 2021 WL 2521615 (9th Cir. 2021) In 2018, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 826, which requires all corporations headquartered in California to have a minimum number of females on...more