Employment Law Now VIII-152 - Part 2 of 2 on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (Attorney Interview)
Labor Law Insider - Non-Competes, Including “Pay-or-Stay” Provisions, Under Continued Assault
#WorkforceWednesday®: How to Navigate Employee Stress After Election Day - Employment Law This Week®
Defending HIMP-1 Claims in New York
Employment Law Now VIII-151 - EEOC Commissioner Interview: Part 1 of 2 on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
Employer Obligations to Accommodate Before Employees Arrive to Work
(Podcast) California Employment News: Minimum Wage Increases for 2025
California Employment News: Minimum Wage Increases for 2025
Leadership Lessons From The West Wing — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Constangy Clips Ep. 4 - 3 Things that Keep your Labor and Employment Lawyer Up at Night
DEI for the Savvy Employer: Navigating Challenges and Maximizing Opportunities
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 35: Navigating Union Campaigns with Armando Llorente of Llorente HR Consulting
#WorkforceWednesday®: Mental Health Parity Rules, NLRB Restrictions, New York's Workplace Violence Prevention Law - Employment Law This Week®
DE Talk | Using Employment Networks to Connect with Individuals with Disabilities in an Ever-Changing Workforce
California Employment News: A Refresher on Voting Leave Laws for CA Employers
(Podcast) California Employment News: A Refresher on Voting Leave Laws for CA Employers
Managing Political Discourse at Work With Lessons From Mad Men - Hiring to Firing Podcast
Managing Employee Leave Under the FMLA and ADA
Reel Shorts | Labor & Employment: Navigating AI Compliance Risks in Recruiting
#WorkforceWednesday®: FTC Exits Labor Pact, EEOC Alleges Significant Underrepresentation in Tech, Sixth Circuit Affirms NLRB Ruling - Employment Law This Week®
The United States Supreme Court recently settled a circuit split concerning when an involuntary lateral transfer may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court’s opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis...more
Employers often place employees on paid administrative leave while they investigate accusations of employee misconduct or make decisions regarding the employees’ employment. Traditionally, most federal courts agreed that this...more
In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that transferring an employee to a new position with the same rank and pay may constitute an adverse action under Title VII. The recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis,...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that to sustain a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), plaintiffs do...more
Thus far, 2024 has been a whirlwind of new employment rules, statutes, guidance, and decisions for employers to grapple with and account for in their businesses. Among these decisions are a handful of rulings from the Supreme...more
In a recent decision, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining whether an adverse employment action is a sufficient basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII of the...more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the threshold for employees to demonstrate discrimination under Title VII, the Sixth Circuit has expanded the scope of what employers...more
A Title VII plaintiff does not need to demonstrate that the injury alleged satisfies a significance test, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. ...more
In what may be considered a “win” for employees, the United States Supreme Court recently clarified that an employee challenging a job transfer as “discriminatory” need only prove that they sustained “some” harm due to the...more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more
Picture this: You're just about set to open a new workplace in Smallsville. The only hurdle remaining is finding the right person to manage the new location. After giving this problem considerable thought, you think you've...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Muldrow vs. City of St. Louis, which held that Title VII – which bars employers from discriminating in decisions involving among other things, lateral transfers – does...more
In a recently decided case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a job transfer may demonstrate adverse action even when the transfer does not result in a loss of pay or other benefit. A unanimous Court held in Muldrow v. City of...more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (No. 22-193) and held that “some injury” is sufficient to establish a federal discrimination or...more
On April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that private employers can be liable for changing an employee’s working terms and conditions because of race or another protected status, even if the changes do not...more
Adverse employment action in employment discrimination claims are easier to prove with the U.S. Supreme Court’s much-anticipated April 17, 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff police sergeant...more
The Supreme Court last month made it easier for employees who are involuntarily transferred from one position to another to pursue employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, holding that while an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more
If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that plaintiffs bringing discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis of a job transfer do not...more
A U.S. Supreme Court with a conservative majority is still capable of surprising us. In Muldrow v. St. Louis, the Court lightened the burden on employment discrimination plaintiffs by lowering the legal ‘bar’ for an employee...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a mandatory job transfer might be considered an “adverse employment action” under federal anti-discrimination law. Following this decision, which creates a lesser standard for...more
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a lateral job transfer can – in certain circumstances – be an illegal adverse action and support a claim for a lawsuit for unlawful discrimination. This...more