Webinar: Is Your DEI Policy Setting You Up for a Lawsuit?
Navigating Employment and Separation Agreements: Lessons From Al Pacino's Serpico — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Employment Law Now VII-130- An Interview With EEOC Commissioner (Vice Chair) Jocelyn Samuels
Partner Greg Rolen Discusses a Whistleblower Claim at Fremont Union School District’s Board Meeting
#WorkforceWednesday: Whistleblower Risks in an Economic Downturn, Whistleblower Protection Settlement - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: Updated EEOC COVID-19 Technical Assistance Guidance, Case Decision & Wage & Hour Division Proposed Rule
What's Going on With Whistleblower Lines
#WorkforceWednesday: CA COVID-19 Policies Get Updates, NYC Pay Transparency Law Postponed, DOL Targets Worker Retaliation - Employment Law This Week®
Whistleblowers: Don't Drink the Government's Kool-Aid
What Employers Should Know About the Federal Joint Initiative to Reduce Workplace Retaliation
#WorkforceWednesday: Whistleblower Regulations Increasing, #MeToo Bill Passes, Cyberfraud Risk Mitigation - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: OSHA ETS Moves to the Sixth Circuit, Federal Agencies Join to Combat Workplace Retaliation, NY Increases Employee Protections - Employment Law This Week®
Life with GDPR - EU Whistleblower Directive - Part 1
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Enforcement Uptick, New York Limits Private Confidential Settlements, Anti-Harassment Training for Virtual World - Employment Law This Week®
Carrie Penman on Helpline Data Since the Pandemic
Podcast: Whistleblowing, Retaliation Risks Are On the Rise for Health Care Employers - Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday: OSHA ETS on Hold, Retaliation Claims Increase, "Vaccination Ambassadors" - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Withdraws, DOL Rolls Back, and OSHA Expands - Employment Law This Week®
Compliance Perspectives: Anti-Retaliation Programs
Does the First Amendment right to free speech permit an employer to hire or fire an employee based on race? On its face, the proposition may seem absurd, especially as we approach the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act...more
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: WHAT US: MULTI-STATE COMPANIES NEED TO KNOW - We include the 2018 chapter in its entirety for reference following the 2019 update. 2019 Update - In the wake the of the #MeToo...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
What the Supreme Court's decision in Fort Bend really means. As you may have heard, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a plaintiff to proceed with a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit even though she didn't file a...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional predicate for litigation and that an employer who fails to raise this defense has waived it. In a...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States made a ruling that employers and their legal counsel need to be aware of. In Fort Bend County v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled that the charge-filing requirements for...more