Reel Shorts | Labor & Employment: Navigating AI Compliance Risks in Recruiting
#WorkforceWednesday®: Staples Sued Over MA’s Lie Detector Notice, NJ’s Gender-Neutral Dress Code, 2024 Voting Leave Policies - Employment Law This Week®
Righting a Wrong: Putting an End to a Discriminatory Hair Test
Non-Disparagement Settlements in New Jersey, DOL's AI Guidelines, OSHA Regions Shift - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: Title VII Prohibits Discriminatory Job Transfers Even Without Significant Harm, U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Ruled
Decoding Discrimination Laws: What Employers Need to Know
What's the Tea in L&E? Weight Discrimination
The Burr Broadcast: EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
DE Under 3: Complaint Dismissed Alleging an Applicant Screening Tool Discriminated Based on Race, Age, & Disability
DE Under 3: Conservative Activist Group Filed OFCCP Complaints, Alleging Major Airlines' DEI Programs Violated Federal Contracts
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Wants Shuttered Starbucks Stores Reopened, Big Tech Retreats from DEI Programs, and Employers Scrap College Requirements - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law 101_ For Small Businesses [in Colorado]
DE Under 3: New Administrative Review Board Decision from March Sets Down New Backpay Calculation in Litigated OFCCP Cases
DE Under 3: OFCCP Discrimination Enforcement Statistics Hit New Lows
DE Under 3: EEOC Settled Its First Lawsuit Alleging AI Hiring Discrimination
DE Under 3: How to Lawfully Engage in Race-Based Employment Decisions
#WorkforceWednesday: Employee and Health Benefits One Year After Dobbs - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Charges Surge, NYC Prohibits Size Discrimination, FL Expands E-Verify Requirements - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC's LGBTQ+ Guidance Blocked, Employer COVID-19 Update, NYC Prepares for Pay Transparency Law - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: OFCCP’s Unlawful Discrimination Allegations Stair-Step Down in FY 2022
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
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
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
In a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, a police sergeant alleged that she was transferred from one job to a less desirable job in the police department because of her sex....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
In January 2024, we reported on a significant case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, which was then pending before the United States Supreme Court. On April 17, 2024, the Court issued its decision in this...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
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
Can an employee sue under Title VII to challenge a lateral transfer, even if the transfer does not result in a loss of pay? According to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the answer is: Yes....more
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, 601 U.S. _____ (2024), which addressed the appropriate standard for evaluating whether a job transfer – even where the...more
On April 16, 2024, in the case of Muldrow v. St. Louis, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory job transfers, even if the transfer does not...more
An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be...more
Title VII, the federal standard for workplace discrimination cases, prohibits discrimination against individuals with respect to their “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” based on the individual’s...more
On April 17, 2024, the United Stated Supreme Court announced its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., in which the Court clarified the “adverse action” standard to be applied in discrimination cases...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al. Reversing the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the unanimous Court held...more
On April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis resolving a circuit split over what standard an employee challenging a transfer under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII must...more
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis held that an employee who claimed she was involuntarily transferred to another position because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of...more