Abortion Protections Struck Down, LGBTQ Harassment Guidance Vacated, EEO-1 Reporting Opens - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Amend (Don’t End) DEI: What SHRM’s BEAM Framework Means for Law Firms - On Record PR
New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Independent Contractor Rule, EEO-1 Reporting, and New York Labor Law Amendment - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Non-Competes Eased, Anti-DEI Rule Blocked, Contractor Rule in Limbo - Employment Law This Week® - #WorkforceWednesday®
How Happiness Drives Business Success: Leadership Lessons from Grace Ueng
#WorkforceWednesday®: EEOC/DOJ Joint DEI Guidance, EEOC Letters to Law Firms, OFCCP Retroactive DEI Enforcement - Employment Law This Week®
Key Discovery Points: Timing is Mostly Everything in eDiscovery
#WorkforceWednesday®: Federal Contractors Alert - DEI Restrictions Reinstated by Appeals Court - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: New DOL Leadership, NLRB Quorum, EEOC Enforcement Priorities - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: Should Employers Shift Workforce Data Collection Under President Trump? - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: Workplace Law Shake-Up - DEI Challenges, NLRB Reversals, and EEOC Actions - Employment Law This Week®
Harassment in the Celebrity Workplace: Insights From It Ends With Us — Hiring to Firing Podcast
The Privacy Insider Podcast Episode 11: Signal and Noise: The New Administration, Privacy, and Our Digital Rights with Cindy Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation
#WorkforceWednesday®: Federal Agencies Begin Compliance Efforts Under Trump Administration - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday®: How Will Trump’s Federal Changes Impact Employers? - Employment Law This Week®
Navigating DEI in a Shifting Legal Landscape: Insights From Late Night — Hiring to Firing Podcast
A Conversation with Phil Hamzik
The Privacy Insider Podcast Episode 9: I Think, Therefore I Am: AI, Ethics, & Humanity With Dr. Michael Hemenway
Building Bridges – Rev. Al Sharpton’s Blueprint for Harlem’s Museum of Civil Rights
The closely watched battle over “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concluded Wednesday with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The...more
Brazil intends to regulate AI through Bill No. 2,338/2023 ("Brazil's Proposed AI Regulation"), although there are currently no specific codified laws, statutory rules or regulations in Brazil that directly regulate AI....more
On September 11, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a report titled “High Tech, Low Inclusion: Diversity in the High Tech Workforce and Sector From 2014-2022.” In the report, the EEOC...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously struck down the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which had required majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened...more
On May 29, 2025, in Oldham v. Pa. State University, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the “zone of interest” test applies to Title IX claims. See No. 22-2056, 2025 WL 1524452 (3d Cir. 2025). The plaintiff, Jennifer...more
If you have a grooming policy based on safety factors (like no beards for firefighters), does that trump an employee’s request for a religious accommodation? Maybe not. A recent Third Circuit decision, Smith v. City of...more
In a decision that may rattle employers nationwide, a federal appeals court recently revived an Army veteran’s ADA suit against her employer for delaying her request to bring a service dog to work, despite eventually granting...more
On June 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision making it easier for employees to prove claims of so-called “reverse” discrimination (i.e., suits brought by a member of a majority group alleging to have been treated...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a longstanding rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts that imposed a...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court lowered the bar for majority-group plaintiffs – ruling they are not required to meet a higher standard to bring reverse discrimination claims. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v....more
Today, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously held that in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services in which the Plaintiff alleged reverse discrimination based on sexual orientation. Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 as an...more
The US Supreme Court just unanimously ruled that plaintiffs alleging workplace discrimination under Title VII are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard just because they have “majority-group” status....more
Just today, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a contentious disagreement between courts regarding the burden of proof required to bring a disparate treatment claim under Title VII. While the majority of appeals courts in the...more
During the 2025 legislative session, Washington State enacted several new measures that will significantly impact employer obligations related to hiring practices and personnel recordkeeping. Two statewide bills—HB 1308 and...more
On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “background circumstances” test previously applied by several federal circuits in “reverse discrimination” cases....more
On June 5, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding unanimously that members of majority groups suing their employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) are not...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the dismissal of a heterosexual woman’s Title VII claims, concluding that she was improperly subjected to a heightened prima facie standard that required her to show...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the “background circumstances” rule in “reverse” employment discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in a unanimous decision overturning...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, striking down the “background circumstances” requirement in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases. The Court held...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that employees who are part of a majority group do not have a higher evidentiary standard to prove workplace discrimination. ...more
On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision interpreting the limitations period for filing lawsuits under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. ...more
The U.S. Supreme Court set the record straight on June 5, 2025 — reminding employers that all employees are created equal when it comes to Title VII litigation in federal court. The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court today swung wide open the door for all persons who experience employment discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex or national origin to bring suit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But does that protection apply equally to white, male, or...more