#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
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
Jackson Lewis Principal and Board Member Tanya Bovée interviewed U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioner Andrea Lucas at Jackson Lewis’ Workplace Horizons conference in Las Vegas on April 17, 2024. ...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
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis appears to have expanded the universe of “adverse employment actions” that could support an employee’s discrimination claim. The Supreme Court stated in...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
We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law....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
Mattioda v. Nelson, 98 F.4th 1164 (9th Cir. 2024) - Summary: Disability-based harassment claims are available under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act....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
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
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that an employee alleging a discriminatory job transfer need only show “some injury” respecting their employment terms or conditions, rather than a...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
Last week, on April 17, 2024, the US Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)...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