#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
DE Under 3: USDOJ’s Settlement Affecting Recruiters, OFCCP’s AAP Verification Deadline Extension & SCOTUS’ New Ruling
Recent surveys indicate the widespread use of generative AI (artificial intelligence) and other artificial intelligence tools by employees in the workplace. This is hardly surprising, given the astonishing level of...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
Seyfarth Synopsis: On July 12, 2024, the court issued a mixed ruling in the closely watched Mobley v. Workday putative class action, which claims that Workday, a Human Capital Management platform, is directly liable for...more
While a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit applies to Western states, it should serve as a signal for employers across the country to examine and update their recruiting and hiring policies. The split ruling by a...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
On July 12, 2024, in a keenly awaited decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California determined that Workday, Inc. (“Workday”), a provider of AI-infused human resources (HR) software, can be held...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
Under the recent Supreme Court Ruling of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, employees no longer need to suffer “significant” harm to state a claim of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”)....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
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against 15 employers in 10 states this week, alleging the companies failed to comply with mandatory federal reporting requirements....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
Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against employees on the basis of their gender, race, national origin, color or religion. Nowhere does it provide an express definition of discrimination or establish a standard a...more
Employment lawsuits typically involve allegations of an employer’s wrongdoing – claims that the employer or its agents intended to and did mistreat, discriminate, or retaliate against employees. However, these “bad actor”...more
As recently reflected by the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, Title VII has a notable ministerial exception that religiously affiliated entities such as private religious schools should...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 Mobley v. Workday, the EEOC filed an amicus brief supporting a class-action plaintiff's theory that a Human Resources software company could be directly liable for employment discrimination allegedly caused by the vendor's...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
Introduction - The nation’s highest court has lowered the bar for involuntarily transferred employees to make the necessary showing of harm to make out a case of Title VII employment discrimination....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