Abortion Protections Struck Down, LGBTQ Harassment Guidance Vacated, EEO-1 Reporting Opens - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast - Ruling: Las mujeres toman cerveza a los 18 años
DE Under 3: EEOC & DOJ Technical Guidance for Employer’s AI Use; Upcoming EEOC Hearing; Event for Mental Health in the Workplace
Episode 24: Corporate Oppression Doctrine Meets Sex Discrimination: A Conversation with Professor Meredith Miller
College Esports Programs: What You Need To Know
Framing the American Past to Better Understand Women and Gender History with UC Davis Professors Ellen Hartigan -O’Conner and Lisa Materson: On Record PR
Election 2020: The Future of Pay Equity
#WorkforceWednesday: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Leaves Behind a Legacy - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Decision on LGBTQ Employees, EEOC on Older Workers Returning to Work - Employment Law This Week®
This Week in FCPA-Episode 142 - the What’s in Your Supply Chain? edition
Investigating Harassment Claims
Episode 25: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part II: Other Emerging EEOC Trends + Takeaways
Episode 24: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part I: Employers' "Superstar Harassment" Problem
I-12: Update on the DOL's New OT Rules, and Part 2 of My Interview with Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Part 1 of 2: My Sit-Down Interview With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Stealth Lawyer: Clare Dalton, Acupuncturist
Higher education institutions and student-athletes are navigating continuing uncertainty about institutional revenue-sharing payments and the Title IX implications of the landmark House v. NCAA settlement....more
Summer 2025 Higher Education Title IX Training Series - As the legal landscape across higher education continues to to evolve, it's essential for educational institutions to stay diligent and prepared. Our Summer 2025...more
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether states can ban transgender high school and college athletes from participating on female sports teams at their schools. After initially declining to review this issue in 2023 and...more
For anyone who thought an unprecedented $2.8 billion settlement agreement actually resolved one of the many murky issues of student-athlete compensation in college athletics —not so fast. On June 6, federal Judge Claudia...more
As the Supreme Court Prepares to Decide the Legality of Trans-Athlete Bans, Schools Must Ready Themselves for Far-Reaching Precedent Addressing “On the Basis of Sex” On July 3, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in...more
Since day one, a policy priority of the Administration has been to discourage and prevent gender-affirming care for children and adolescents that involves surgery or medication....more
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that Title VII does not impose a heightened or different burden of proof for majority-group plaintiffs. Simply put, “reverse discrimination” Title VII claims...more
The first half of 2025 brought unprecedented changes for federal contractors seeking to comply with federal affirmative action requirements. The rescission of Executive Order 11246 via Executive Order 14173 upended decades of...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more
The EEOC recently updated its workplace harassment enforcement guidance to reflect a Texas federal court ruling that found the Biden-era EEOC had overstepped its authority by requiring bathroom, dress, and pronoun...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on June 5, 2025, that majority group plaintiffs are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard of showing “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of...more
On June 5, 2025—in the midst of heightened scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives triggered by executive orders issued by President Trump as well as various federal agency guidance—the Supreme Court...more
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has rescinded several pieces of informal guidance, including its 2021 interpretation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Section 1557), in response to executive...more
Employers remain obligated to complete and submit their EEO-1 reports, even with the current administration’s aggressive reworking of the anti-discrimination landscape. Federal mandatory reporting requirements require private...more
In Title IX investigations and decision-making processes, especially in word-against-word complaints where direct evidence is limited, pattern evidence can provide valuable clarity. When available and applicable, it offers a...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by some lower courts in what are often referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims is...more
In a widely awaited for decision, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Roberts held that a Tennessee law which prohibits certain medical treatments (puberty blockers and hormones) for transgender minors,...more
In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more
On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors does not classify on the basis of sex in ways that would require heightened scrutiny under the Equal...more
On June 18, 2025, in the case of United States v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care—concluding that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 2025 WL 1583264 (U.S. June 5, 2025), the Supreme Court held unanimously that the “background circumstances” rule imposed by some lower courts, requiring members of a...more
If a qualified job candidate asks to reschedule a second-round interview due to severe menstrual cramps associated with endometriosis, is that a request for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act? If you...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more
On June 5, 2025, in a 9-0 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that members of a “majority group” do not have to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 2025 WL 1583264, (U.S. June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that majority group plaintiffs (in this instance, a heterosexual plaintiff) do not need to meet...more