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
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the making of contracts, including employment contracts. Section 1981 is often used by employees suing for race discrimination as...more
Between gerrymandering and the 'citizenship' question, the Supreme Court concluded its 2018 term with a bang. The Court is primed for further fireworks in its 2019 term. For employers, this includes whether Title VII...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
As the U.S. Supreme Court ended its most recent term with a number of cases that will have broad societal implications, one employment law case decided by the Court seems to have taken somewhat of a back seat, despite the...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
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
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court held in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, that the burden of proof for plaintiffs arguing retaliation in violation of Title VII is “but-for” causation, rather than...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
Employers are well aware that poorly performing employees may lodge baseless retaliation claims as a smokescreen to interfere with legitimate discipline....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
Also on June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court addressed the standard courts should apply to determine whether an employer violates Title VII's anti-retaliation provision. Because of a statutory amendment in 1991, courts apply a...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently adopted a strict causation standard that will make it more difficult for employees seeking to prove retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....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
On one day recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued employer-friendly opinions in two separate and long-awaited cases interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (known simply as “Title VII”), the primary federal...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 held on Monday that a plaintiff alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that retaliation was the “but-for” reason for an adverse employment...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heightened the burden of proof for employees bringing retaliation claims under Title VII by holding that employees have to prove that the employer's desire to retaliate was...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
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court rejected a lower standard of proof for employee retaliation claims under Title VII, finding that a lower causation standard could tempt poorly performing employees to file frivolous claims...more