Discrimination

Expert Analysis

• Justices Could Clarify Post-Badgerow Arbitration Jurisdiction

  

  If the U.S. Supreme Court grants a certiorari petition in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, it could provide some welcome clarity on post-arbitration award jurisdiction, an issue lingering since the court's 2022 decision in Badgerow v. Walters, says David Pegno at Dewey Pegno.

• New Federal Worker Religious Protections Test All Employers

  

  A recent Trump administration memorandum expanding federal employees' religious protections raises tough questions for all employers and signals a larger trend toward significantly expanding religious rights in the workplace, say attorneys at Seyfarth.

• Navigating Administrative Exhaustion In EEOC Charges

  Excerpt from Practical Guidance

  

  Before responding to a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge, employers should understand the process of exhausting administrative remedies and when it applies, and consider several best practices, such as preserving records and crafting effective position statements, says Matthew Gagnon at Ogletree.

• Justices' Decision Axing Retiree's ADA Claim Offers Clarity

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Stanley v. City of Sanford that protections under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act don't extend to retirees potentially limits liability by giving employers additional support to challenge complaints, and highlights the need for proactive policy management to mitigate risk, say attorneys at Jackson Lewis.

• Trans Bias Suits Will Persist Despite EEOC's Shifting Priorities

  

  In U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sis-Bro, an Illinois federal court let a transgender worker intervene in a bias suit that the EEOC moved to dismiss, signaling that the agency's pending gender identity-related actions will carry on even as its priorities shift to align with the new administration, say attorneys at Venable.

• Reverse Bias Rulings Offer Warning About DEI Quotas

  

  Several recent holdings confirm that targeted or quota-based diversity programs can substantiate reverse discrimination claims, especially when coupled with an adverse action, so employers should exercise caution before implementing such policies in order to mitigate litigation risk, says Noah Bunzl at Tarter Krinsky.

• 4 In-Flux Employment Law Issues Banks Should Note

  

  Attorneys at Ogletree provide a midyear update on employment law changes that could significantly affect banks and other financial service institutions — including federal diversity equity and inclusion updates, and new and developing state and local artificial intelligence laws.

• 7 Ways Employers Can Avoid Labor Friction Over AI

  

  As artificial intelligence use in the workplace emerges as a key labor relations topic in the U.S. and Europe, employers looking to reduce reputational risk and prevent costly disputes should consider proactive strategies to engage with unions, say attorneys at Baker McKenzie.

• 3rd Circ. Bias Ruling Offers Safety Policy Exception Lessons

  

  The Third Circuit's decision in Smith v. City of Atlantic City, partially reinstating a religious bias suit over a policy requiring firefighters to be clean-shaven, cautions employers on the legal risk of including practical or discretionary exceptions in safety procedures, say Joseph Quinn and Mark Schaeffer at Cozen O'Connor.

• Managing Risks As State AGs Seek To Fill Enforcement Gap

  

  Given an unprecedented surge in state attorney general activity resulting from significant shifts in federal enforcement priorities, companies must consider tailored strategies for navigating the ever-evolving risk landscape, say attorneys at Cozen O'Connor.

• How NY Appeals Ruling Alters Employers' Sex Abuse Liability

  

  In Nellenback v. Madison County, the New York Court of Appeals arguably reset the evidentiary threshold in sexual abuse cases involving employer liability, countering lower court decisions that allowed evidence of the length of the undiscovered abuse to substitute as notice of an employee's dangerous propensity, say attorneys at Hurwitz Fine.

• Protecting Workers Amid High Court-EEOC Trans Rights Rift

  

  In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and U.S. v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, so employers should still protect against such discrimination despite the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's unclear position, says Ally Coll at the Purple Method.

• How Latest High Court Rulings Refine Employment Law

  

  The 2024-2025 U.S. Supreme Court term did not radically rewrite employment law, but sharpened focus on textual fidelity, procedural rigor and the boundaries of statutory relief, say attorneys at Krevolin & Horst.