On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina...more
9/8/2023
/ Affirmative Action ,
Civil Rights Act ,
College Admissions ,
Diversity and Inclusion Standards (D&I) ,
Employment Discrimination ,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ,
Equal Protection ,
Fourteenth Amendment ,
SCOTUS ,
Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard College ,
Students for Fair Admissions v University of North Carolina ,
Title VI
As the outbreak of COVID-19 affects the country and states, counties and cities take various measures to slow the transmission, many employers are facing uncertainty and considering business contingency measures. To the...more
Mid-sized businesses (defined as 500 to 10,000 employees) impacted by the Coronavirus may be able to obtain relief loans under the COVID-19 stimulus law, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”),...more
In Griffin v. Sirva, Inc., the New York Court of Appeals held that while only “employers” may be liable for criminal conviction history discrimination under Section 296(15) of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), a...more
The Second Circuit is once again seeking guidance from the New York Court of Appeals, this time on the question of the appropriate standard for awarding punitive damages for unlawful discriminatory acts under the New York...more
The Second Circuit has asked the New York Court of Appeals for guidance on the scope of liability for discrimination based on criminal conviction history under Section 296(15) of the New York State Human Rights Law...more
9/1/2016
/ Aiding and Abetting ,
Appeals ,
Criminal Background Checks ,
Criminal Records ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Discrimination ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Human Rights ,
Independent Contractors ,
Joint Employers ,
NYHRL ,
Subcontracts
In Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., the Second Circuit adopted the “cat’s paw” theory of liability under Title VII and held that the retaliatory intent of a low-level, non-supervisory employee may be imputed to an...more
Recently, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous judgment that government agency "interpretive rules" are not subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, but cautioned that those same rules do not carry the "force and effect of...more
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation case must prove that the retaliation was the "but for" cause of the employer's adverse action. University of Texas S.W. Med. Ctr. v....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
In Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345 (U.S. June 24, 2013), the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision upholding a university's affirmative action plan that considered race as one of the factors in its...more