Compliance Unveiled: 10 Must-Know Tips for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act & Independent Contractor Rules
The Burr Broadcast: Key Differences Between PWFA and ADA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Expands Title VII, EEOC’s Final PWFA Rule, AI Screening Tools - Employment Law This Week®
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 13: The Americans with Disabilities Act with Stefania Bondurant
The Burr Morning Show: Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 3: Top Labor & Employment Issues for 2024 with Jennie Cluverius, Cherie Blackburn, and Christy Rogers
Workplace Accommodation after COVID: Legal Update
Podcast: What Employers Should Know about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 62]
Employment Law Now VII-136 - Summer 2023 Wrap-Up Part 2
The Burr Broadcast Aug. 2023: Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
Supreme Court Miniseries: Religious Accommodation at Work
Employment Law Now VII-133 - Hot Summer Employment Law Developments
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Introduces Heightened Standard for Religious Accommodation, Rules Against Affirmative Action, Protects “Expressive” Services - Employment Law This Week®
Litigation Lessons for California Employers
DE Under 3: Diving into DEAMcon23 – Accommodations, DEIB, Disability & More
Constangy Webinar - Spring Cleaning: How to Keep your HR Practices Mess Free
Employment Law Now VII-130- An Interview With EEOC Commissioner (Vice Chair) Jocelyn Samuels
The Burr Morning Show April 2023 - The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
#WorkforceWednesday: Federal Focus on Mental Health, FTC and Noncompetes, Gig Work Risks for Hospitals - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VI-116-Top 10 Employment Issues To Consider For The Summer Kick-Off
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued several significant decisions that employers doing business in Minnesota should be aware of. Here are a few highlights of recent Eight Circuit Decisions that have addressed...more
Last week, the EEOC again updated its COVID-19 technical assistance; this time, to include more information about employer retaliation in pandemic-related employment situations. The update explains and clarifies the...more
This week, we focus on what can be learned from the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC’s) fiscal year (FY) 2021 filings as employers continue to navigate COVID-19 in the months ahead. EEOC: Back in Enforcement...more
Employees Subjected to Religious Discrimination and Retaliation - DALLAS – Tim Shepherd M.D., P.A. and Bridges Healthcare, P.A., doing business as Shepherd Healthcare, a medical practice in Flower Mound, Texas, will pay...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Vaccinations have been widely debated over the past few years, leaving employers unclear about their obligations to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs conflict with them. Recently the U.S. Court...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously resolved a long-running dispute about procedure under Title VII and sent a message to employers that it is important to pay attention and act promptly when faced with a Title...more
Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing precondition to suit is not a jurisdictional requirement and is instead a procedural prescription that is subject to forfeiture, refusing to...more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (U.S. June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the charge-filing requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not jurisdictional. The case...more
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States - Fort Bend County v. Davis - has sparked conversations about whether a current or former employee must file a complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a split among federal appellate courts dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file an administrative charge with the Equal...more
Recently, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a jurisdictional question: If a plaintiff fails to exhaust her remedies by first filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that the requirement that a plaintiff exhaust his/her administrative remedies before filing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a mandatory...more
Welcome to June! As we head into the summer, the employment law world continues to heat up! We have rounded up the most recent developments impacting employers for your summer reading pleasure here....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: New decision from the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file with the EEOC or other state agencies is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, which means it can be...more
The Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the charge-filing precondition to suit of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver, not a jurisdictional bar to...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for employees to file an administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a claim for discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, and retaliation, but it requires that a plaintiff file a charge of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 3, 2019, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, that federal courts may hear plaintiffs' claims of discrimination brought under Title VII, even if those claims were not brought...more
Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is nonjurisdictional and is subject to forfeiture rules, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 3. The decision does not eliminate the rule that employees must first file charges...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case of Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") to file an administrative charge...more
Employers Can No Longer Wait To Assert Affirmative Defense of Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies In Fort Bend County v. Davis, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday, June 3, 2019, that the...more