Redlining Isn’t What it Used To Be
DE Under 3: EEOC’s Settlement with the SSA is a Cautionary Tale for Private Sector Employers & Federal Government Contractors
DE Under 3: EEOC Consent Decree Illustrated Enforcement Stance Regarding Natural Hair Texture & Race Discrimination
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
The Labor Law Insider: Recent U.S. Supreme Court, NLRB Decisions Highlight Labor Issues in Higher Education
DE Under 3: The Harvard and UNC Case Decisions Are Coming
An Update on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Consumer Financial Services Industry, with Special Guest Naomi Mercer, Senior Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, American Bankers
FTC Consent Order With Auto Dealer and Proposed Rule - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast | Episode 55: Brendah Mpanga, BNM Advocates | Uganda
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
DE Under 3: EEOC & DOJ Technical Guidance for Employer’s AI Use; Upcoming EEOC Hearing; Event for Mental Health in the Workplace
NFL’s Rooney Rule: The Flores Discrimination Suit’s Impact on DEI initiatives [More with McGlinchey Ep. 38]
Podcast - Discussing the Mission of Black Women's Health Imperative with CEO Linda Goler Blount
From Tulsa to Now: Dismantling Systemic Racism in Our Financial Systems
“Listen In” to Allison Manswell as She Talks About Her Impactful Book on Race Relations
Meet the Engaging George Washington as He Shares His Views on Leadership and More
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot on Policing Reform
The Making of Overhaul of Advocacy, a Resource Database for Allies and Antiracists: On Record PR
Leaders Moving 2020 Forward with Tony Upshaw and Karl Reid
How an Am Law 200 Firm is Working Towards Solutions to 2020’s Challenges with Jeremy Sacks: On Record PR
In recent years, a number of federal appellant courts, including the Fourth Circuit, have issued opinions finding that a single use of a racial slur can be enough to constitute a hostile and offensive working environment...more
Employers are well aware of their potential liability for workplace harassment claims involving co-workers or third parties. They also understand their heightened legal responsibility when the alleged harasser is the...more
In most circumstances, employers are vicariously liable for sexual or other harassment engaged in by their supervisors. Under the Supreme Court’s Faragher/Ellerth defense, employers can sometimes avoid liability for...more
Looking back at the recently-completed 2012-2013 Supreme Court term, employers should have reason to feel good about how things turned out. In fact, of the six major decisions that impact employers and can be categorized in...more
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions - Court Limits Definition of “Supervisor” Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Law - In Vance v. Ball State University (June 24, 2013), in a 5-4 decision, a majority of the Supreme...more
The Potential Implications for Educational Institutions - Last month, at the close of its October 2012 term, the Supreme Court issued two important rulings in Title VII employment discrimination cases that make it...more
By the end of this year’s term, the United States Supreme Court had issued three “employer-friendly” decisions. While the decisions do not dramatically alter the employment law landscape, employers will still welcome the...more
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two critical decisions regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which improve an employer’s ability to defend against employee claims of harassment and retaliation. ...more
Employer strictly liable for supervisor’s harassment of employee only if supervisor has hire and fire authority over subordinates - In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued two employer-friendly opinions that substantially narrow potential liability for claims of supervisor misconduct and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
Employee Must Prove That Illegal Retaliation Was The "But For" Cause Of Adverse Job Action Under Title VII - University of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3155234 (2013) - The United States...more
On Monday, we blogged about the first of two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Today, we’ll...more
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued opinions in two cases which are clear victories for employers. First, in Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court held that “an employer may be vicariously liable for...more
The United States Supreme Court recently delivered a “win” for employers in Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. __ (June 24, 2013) in which the Court narrowed the definition of supervisor for purposes of employer...more
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions that will make it more difficult for employees to pursue various employment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....more
In Vance v. Ball State University, No.11-556, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ball State, making it harder for employees to sue employers for harassment under Title VII. ...more
Excerpt from Supreme Court Sides With Employers in Title VII Suits - Capping off a term of big decisions with employer-friendly results, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on two major employment issues in a pair of...more
As the United States Supreme Court wraps up its term, employers should take note of three decisions issued this past Monday, June 24....more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more
This week the Supreme Court issued three decisions that may significantly impact federal contractors and other employers: In Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345 (U.S. June 24, 2013), the Supreme Court held that a...more
Divided Court holds that a "supervisor" must be empowered to take tangible employment actions for vicarious liability under Title VII to apply and that Title VII retaliation claims are subject to a higher "but-for" causation...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), holding that an employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious employer liability...more
At our recent Labor and Employment Law Seminar, we highlighted a number of outstanding legal cases that have the potential to have a significant impact on employer liability. ...more
Employers “may be vicariously liable for an employee’s unlawful harassment only where the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim…,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 25,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday issued two Title VII decisions favorable to employers. One case examined the definition of a supervisor under the anti-discrimination laws, and the other dealt with an employee’s burden of...more