Eighth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Putative Class Claims
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
Court of Appeals Reversals from a Criminal Perspective | Jim Huggler | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
The Immediate and Lasting Impacts of McGirt: A Novel Ruling for Oklahoma
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
#BigIdeas2020: NLRB’s Actions Impact Employers in 2020 - Employment Law This Week® - Trending News
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
Podcast: South Dakota v. Wayfair
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
Under the “stray remarks” doctrine, courts can conclude that an employer’s expressions of frustration, or comments by a manager not involved in an adverse employment decision, are not persuasive evidence of...more
In this episode of DE Under 3, resident expert John Fox shares first-hand experience with the recent appellate court’s reversal of the 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car discrimination trial decision, and Candee shares updates on...more
The DE OFCCP Week in Review (WIR) is a simple, fast and direct summary of relevant happenings in the OFCCP regulatory environment, authored by experts John C. Fox, Candee Chambers and Jennifer Polcer. In today’s edition, they...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
If disabled employees are no longer able to perform the essential functions of their job even with reasonable accommodation, under the Americans with Disabilities Act the employer must consider transferring the workers to an...more
On a matter of first impression, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit, in Durham v. Rural/Metro Corp., applied the test for indirect evidence of intentional pregnancy discrimination enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Young v. UPS....more
Bringing positive news for employers and a welcome distraction from the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Supreme Court recently held that for claims of racial discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of...more
Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Upholding But-For Causation in Section 1981 Discrimination Cases - The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that a plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in...more
On April 3, 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit in EEOC v. Vantage Energy Services, Inc., No. 19-20541, clarified its interpretation of the relate-back doctrine for administrative charges. The Fifth Circuit...more
On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African-American Owned Media, ruled that a plaintiff who alleges race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 must plead and...more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court last week ensured that a high standard will be used when assessing whether claims of race discrimination under Section 1981 should advance past the early stages of litigation....more
Surrounded by the confusion and anxiety of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it may feel refreshing to step back and consider some of the basic tenets of employment law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp....more
In a unanimous decision issued on March 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that a but-for causation standard applies to claims brought under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court also...more
On Monday, March 23, the United States Supreme Court, in a nearly unanimous opinion, ruled that a plaintiff asserting race discrimination claims in the making of a contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) bears the...more
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits intentional race discrimination in all forms of contracting including employment. Lower courts have split as to whether a § 1981 plaintiff must prove that race was only one...more
In yet another development in the closely watched case of Rizo v. Yovino, the en banc Ninth Circuit ruled that employers may not defeat a plaintiff’s prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) by arguing prior pay is a...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides specific time limitations for filing EEOC charges and subsequent lawsuits. What happens, however, if the employer and employee agree to shorten the period of time under which...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....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
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
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
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States - Fort Bend County v. Davis - has sparked conversations about whether a current or former employee must file a complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for...more