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
Company Owner Repeatedly Claimed Women Do Not Belong in the Building Trades and Sexually Harassed Female Employees for Years, Federal Agency Charged - SEATTLE — Spokane Valley-based HVAC contractor Air Control Heating &...more
I have urged all employers to have good and thorough policies against workplace discrimination or harassment. However, a recent case filed by the EEOC against a hotel chain shows that having such policies is not enough, it is...more
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits retaliation against employees because they either oppose discriminatory actions (the "Opposition Clause") or because of their participation in an investigation, proceeding, or...more
There's a new sheriff in town . . . . . . so y'all better straighten up. You probably know by now that the Biden Administration fired Sharon Fast Gustafson, the Trump-appointed General Counsel of the Equal Employment...more
Prior to the advent of social media and especially the #MeToo movement, employers were generally comfortable drawing a bright line between what employees did on their own time and workplace misconduct. ...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
Hospital Supervisors Refused Accommodation for Deaf Employee, Federal Agency Charges - SANTA FE, N.M. - Christus Health, doing business as Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center in Santa Fe, N.M., violated federal...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
Communications Specialist Fired for Complaining About Race Discrimination, Federal Agency Charges - ATLANTA - The general board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, Inc. doing business as Global Ministries...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
Chicago Cargo Company Tolerated Sexual Harassment of Female Employees and Fired a Male Employee for Speaking Out, Federal Agency Charged - CHICAGO - Alliance Ground International, a cargo handling company that performs...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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 3, 2019, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, that federal courts may hear plaintiffs' claims of discrimination brought under Title VII, even if those claims were not brought...more
Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is nonjurisdictional and is subject to forfeiture rules, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 3. The decision does not eliminate the rule that employees must first file charges...more