Employment Law Now VIII-149 - Part 2 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
Employment Law Now VIII-148- Part 1 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
The New EEOC Guidelines on Workplace Harassment
EEO-1 Filing After June 4: What to Do Now, and How to Prepare for Next Year - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: EEOC’s Settlement with the SSA is a Cautionary Tale for Private Sector Employers & Federal Government Contractors
The Burr Broadcast: Key Differences Between PWFA and ADA
DOL’s Expanded Overtime Salary Limits, EEOC’s Sexual Harassment Guidance, NY’s Mandatory Paid Prenatal Leave - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Expands Title VII, EEOC’s Final PWFA Rule, AI Screening Tools - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VIII-142 - Federal Agency Update (Part 1 of 2)
DE Under 3: EEOC Consent Decree Illustrated Enforcement Stance Regarding Natural Hair Texture & Race Discrimination
DE Under 3: OMB Announced Finalized Overhaul to Federal Race & Ethnicity Data Collection Standards
The Burr Morning Show: Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
DE Under 3: Biden "Hits the Brakes" on Non-Defense Discretionary Budgets for Federal Agencies in FY 2025 Budget Proposal
DE Under 3: Big Budget Opponents Again Stop a Final Federal FY 2024 Budget, Congress Keeps Agency Spending to FY 2023 Levels
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 2: Labor Dispute Mediations with Drew Rogers, Senior Federal Mediator with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Part 2
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 1: Labor Dispute Mediations with Drew Rogers, Senior Federal Mediator with the EEOC
Employment Law Now VII-139 - An Interview With an Employee-Side Attorney on L&E Issues
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Expands "Joint Employer" Definition, Senate Confirms Agency Heads, and U.S. Regulates AI - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VII-138 - An Interview With the DOL, EEOC, and NLRB
Until now, job application and interview questions that reveal applicants’ protected characteristics have been strongly discouraged. In an economy where dozens of people apply for a vacant job posting, knowing too much about...more
Most employers know that Title VII prohibits discrimination against applicants or employees based on religion. They also know that Title VII requires employers to provide reasonable, religion-based accommodations to employees...more
Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, wore a headscarf when she interviewed for a job with Abercrombie & Fitch. Although the headscarf was not discussed during the interview, the store allegedly decided not to offer Elauf a...more
The EEOC issued a press release on July 20, 2015 announcing that the federal appeals court has dismissed Abercrombie & Fitch’s (“AF”) appeal of the EEOC’s religious discrimination case because AF made the decision to settle...more
Your author joined the ranks of the bearded in January after six years of daily shaving for the Air Force, skillfully concealing his newfound hirsuteness (look it up) amid the current popularity in facial hair (see: Special...more
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court today dismissed Abercrombie & Fitch's appeal of EEOC's religious discrimination case against the company, the federal agency announced today. This represents the final resolution of EEOC...more
The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the EEOC’s lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., alleging that Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire a Muslim applicant, who wore a...more
During the United States Supreme Court’s 2014-2015 term, the Court departed from the pro-business reputation it had developed in labor and employment cases. This term, employees prevailed more often than not, including in...more
The U.S. Supreme Court just issued its much-awaited religious discrimination decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 575 U.S. ___ (June 1, 2015) (No. 14-86). Samantha Elauf applied for a job with A&F and was denied the job...more
Federal anti-discrimination laws (“Title VII”) prohibit an employer from refusing to hire a candidate to avoid accommodating a suspected, but unconfirmed religious practice, according to a recent United States Supreme Court...more
Employer’s Motive, Not Confirmed Knowledge Of Accommodation Need, Is Basis Of Religious Accommodation Violation - Federal anti-discrimination laws (“Title VII”) prohibit an employer from refusing to hire a candidate to...more
It’s hot outside, and that got us thinking about dress codes. Over the past two weeks, the media has been fascinated with employer dress codes – from Walmart allowing denim to Mayo nixing pantyhose to Abercrombie’s “look...more
On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores in which it held that a job applicant can experience religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits employers from, among other things, refusing to hire an applicant because of his or her religion or religious practice. As a general rule, employers must...more
In a case Justice Antonin Scalia described as “really easy,” the Supreme Court held that an employer can be liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice even if the employer lacks actual knowledge of a need for an...more
Religious institutions commonly make payments to or receive payments directly or indirectly from governmental agencies for services rendered; e.g., day cares that benefit from public scholarships, hospitals that participate...more
Last week’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on religious discrimination, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., may have the unintended effect of an increase in religious stereotyping in the workplace. The lawsuit...more
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court decided EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, a Title VII case involving religious discrimination. While the case did not directly involve the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the...more
On Monday, June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which had granted Abercrombie & Fitch (“Abercrombie”) summary judgment in a religious...more
Actual Knowledge by Employer Not Necessary for Title VII Religious Discrimination Claim, U.S. Supreme Court Rules - Why it matters: In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a teenage applicant to...more
The Supreme Court recently held that job applicants may hold their potential employer liable for intentional discrimination under Title VII if the applicant can show that his or her need for an accommodation was a motivating...more
What if it looks like someone may need a religious accommodation, but the individual never asks? Does the company still have a duty to accommodate? In a much awaited opinion, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, determined...more
The United States Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.The Court ruled that Abercrombie violated Title VII by refusing to...more
In a nutshell, the Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie means this: if an employment decision is motivated by religion – even if the employer does not actually know the religious need of the individual – then the...more
Arabic businesswoman in officeOn Monday, June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant if the need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor in the...more