Podcasts about title vii

In this installment of our Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2025 podcast series, three key members of our Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Compliance Practice Group—Simone Francis (St. Thomas/New York), Scott Kelly (Birmingham), and Nonnie Shivers (Phoenix)—address the status of DEI initiatives as they face unprecedented scrutiny. The speakers start by level setting about the status of equal employment opportunity laws, Title VII, Section 1981, and protected characteristics, while outlining strategies for adapting to increased DEI oversight and initiatives from the new administration. Nonnie (who co-chairs the firm's DEI Compliance Practice Group) drills down on the guardrails organizations can put in place regarding resource and affinity groups in the workplace, in addition to the legal status of quotas and preferences. Simone shares perspectives on the importance of identifying the goals of resource groups when assessing their legality and utility for an organization, and whether organizations have used objective data in designing these programs. Scott probes the usefulness of data regarding the policies, design, and implementation of resource groups especially when ensuring the practices of these groups do not go far afield from the policies used to implement them. Finally, Scott stresses the importance of internal and external communications about these programs while assessing these resource programs.

Attorney Rich Lenkov, Capital Member, Downey & Lenkov, and co-host of “Legal Face-Off” on wgnradio.com, joins John Williams to talk about the Justice Department investigating Mayor Brandon Johnson for alleged racially-motivated hiring. Rich tells John if he believes Johnson’s hiring of some employees is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Attorney Rich Lenkov, Capital Member, Downey & Lenkov, and co-host of “Legal Face-Off” on wgnradio.com, joins John Williams to talk about the Justice Department investigating Mayor Brandon Johnson for alleged racially-motivated hiring. Rich tells John if he believes Johnson’s hiring of some employees is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As soon as his 90-day probation period expired, he revealed he had begun taking female hormones four months before he was hired. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

As political forces target Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, companies reassessing their DEI strategies must tread carefully—because while the rhetoric has shifted, the law largely hasn't.Joining us on the Emerging Litigation Podcast is employment attorney Patice L. Holland of Woods Rogers, a Principal in the firm's, Roanoke, Va., offices, where she is co-chair of the Government & Special Investigations Practice. Patice unpacks what companies need to know as they reassess their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in light of recent executive orders and rising political pressure. Patice explains that while the administration has moved to eliminate disparate impact liability and deprioritize federal enforcement, core legal protections under Title VII and state laws like Virginia's Values Act remain fully intact. Employers—especially federal contractors—face complex new certification requirements and exposure to potential False Claims Act liability, while private businesses must weigh operational risk, employee morale, and public perception in their decisions. We also examine the ripple effects across corporate America—from Costco and Apple, which continue to invest in DEI, to Target and Amazon, which scaled back initiatives and faced backlash. Patice offers a practical roadmap for compliance, emphasizing clear communication, leadership buy-in, and smart risk assessment. Listen in as we explore what executive orders really change about DEI law, how obligations differ for government contractors and private companies, the legal and strategic risks of altering DEI policies, and the real-world business consequences of staying the course—or stepping back.

Title VII exempts Liberty University from having to employ individuals who violate its religious beliefs and doctrinal positions. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

A professor didn't meet the minimum standard for tenure promotion, but then sued the university for discrimination under Title VII. Learn how that played out this week on Business Law 101! Thanks for joining me for this episode! I'm a Houston- based attorney, run an HR Consulting company called Claremont Management Group, and am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas. I've also written several non-fiction political commentary books: Bad Deal for America (2022) explores the Vegas-style corruption running rampant in Washington DC, while The Decline of America: 100 Years of Leadership Failures (2018) analyzes – and grades – the leadership qualities of the past 100 years of U.S. presidents. You can find my books on Amazon, and me on social media (Twitter @DSchein1, LinkedIn @DavidSchein, and Facebook, Instagram, & YouTube @AuthorDavidSchein). I'd love to hear from you! As always, the opinions expressed in this podcast are mine and my guests' and not the opinions of my university, my company, or the businesses with which I am connected. Photo credits: - AnnaStills; DCStudio; Salman Qedirov; localradio; KurtArt

This Day in Legal History:  MLK AssassinatedOn April 4, 1968, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. King had traveled to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers, emphasizing his ongoing commitment to economic justice alongside racial equality. His death sent shockwaves through the United States, triggering riots in more than 100 cities and accelerating the passage of key civil rights legislation.King was a central figure in the American civil rights movement, having led campaigns against segregation, voter suppression, and economic inequality. His advocacy relied heavily on nonviolent protest and legal strategies that tested the limits of constitutional protections and federal civil rights enforcement. The assassination drew intense public scrutiny to the federal government's role in protecting civil rights activists.James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, was arrested and charged with King's murder. He pleaded guilty in 1969, avoiding a trial, but later recanted and sought to withdraw the plea. Controversy surrounding the investigation and conviction has persisted for decades, with some—including members of King's own family—questioning whether Ray acted alone or was part of a larger conspiracy.King's assassination directly influenced the U.S. Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited housing discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin. The legislation had faced significant resistance before King's death but was passed just days afterward. His assassination also galvanized greater federal attention to civil rights enforcement under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.A group of 12 Republican-led states, including Texas, Florida, and Missouri, has asked 20 major U.S. law firms to provide documentation on their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The request, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeks to determine whether the firms' practices comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. In a letter sent Thursday, the states referenced recent concerns raised by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which had previously asked the same firms for similar information.Paxton cited potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that some law firms may use hiring policies that prioritize race, sex, or other protected characteristics. He also pointed to possible state-level violations, including those related to deceptive trade practices. The letter specifically called out programs such as diversity fellowships and hiring goals aimed at increasing representation from historically marginalized groups.The states argue they have authority to investigate and enforce laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including policies that may inadvertently or intentionally favor individuals based on race or other traits. Firms named include top legal players like Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, and Skadden, Arps.GOP-Led States Want 20 Law Firms to Disclose Their DEI PracticesRepublicans are considering a significant shift in tax policy by potentially introducing a new top tax bracket for individuals earning $1 million or more annually. The proposed rate, currently under discussion, would range from 39% to 40%, marking a departure from the party's longstanding resistance to tax increases. This idea is part of a broader effort to offset the cost of a multi-trillion dollar tax package being developed by Trump administration allies and Republican lawmakers.Also on the table is a return to the 39.6% top income tax rate previously enacted during the Obama administration, replacing the current 37% rate for high earners. The GOP aims to pass the new tax legislation within months, renewing provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while incorporating new deductions and reforms to appeal to middle- and working-class voters.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has emphasized the urgency of making Trump's earlier tax cuts permanent and stabilizing markets following recent tariff announcements. The evolving plan reflects a broader ideological shift within the Republican Party toward more populist economic messaging.To help pay for the new tax measures, the proposal also includes eliminating the carried interest loophole used by hedge fund and private equity managers and expanding deductions such as those for car loan interest and tipped wages. Trump's campaign promises — including removing taxes on overtime pay and Social Security benefits — are being considered for inclusion as well.Republicans Debate Hiking Top Tax Rate to 40% For Millionaires - BloombergOver 300 law professors from top institutions, along with legal advocacy groups across the political spectrum, have filed court briefs supporting Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against an executive order issued by Trump. The order, signed on March 6, penalizes the law firm for its work with Hillary Clinton and its internal diversity policies by restricting its access to federal buildings, officials, and contracts. Professors from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford argued the order is unconstitutional and undermines the independence of the legal profession.Their brief warned that targeting a firm for political reasons threatens any lawyer or firm that chooses to oppose the president in court, calling the order a dangerous precedent. Advocacy groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute echoed that concern, labeling Trump's action an attack on the legal system and a threat to Americans' right to legal representation.The White House responded by defending the order as a lawful measure to align federal partnerships with the administration's policies, criticizing the lawsuit as an attempt to preserve "government perks." Meanwhile, the Justice Department has requested that a Washington federal judge dismiss the lawsuit. Other firms named in similar orders — Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have also filed suits, while some, like Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, have made agreements with the White House to avoid sanctions.Law professors, legal groups back Perkins Coie in lawsuit over Trump order | ReutersThis week's closing music comes from one of the most innovative and influential composers of the 20th century: Igor Stravinsky. Known for revolutionary works like The Rite of Spring and The Firebird, Stravinsky continually reinvented his style throughout his long career. Born in 1882 near St. Petersburg, Russia, and passing away on April 6, 1971, in New York City, Stravinsky's life spanned continents, world wars, and artistic upheavals. While he is best remembered for his large-scale ballets and orchestral works, he also composed for smaller forms, including a fascinating piece titled simply Tango.Composed in 1940, Tango marks Stravinsky's first original composition written entirely in the United States after his move from Europe. At the time, he was living in Hollywood and adapting to a new cultural and musical environment. The piece is short, dark, and rhythmically sharp—more brooding than danceable—and carries the flavor of the tango tradition filtered through Stravinsky's idiosyncratic, angular style. It was originally written for piano, though Stravinsky later orchestrated it.Tango reflects Stravinsky's interest in blending traditional forms with modernist dissonance and unpredictability. It's a brief but compelling listen that offers a very different side of a composer often associated with thunderous orchestras and ballet scandals. Its rhythmic complexity and stark character echo the uncertainties of the time it was written, just as World War II was escalating. The piece serves as a reminder that even in exile, Stravinsky continued to experiment, innovate, and absorb new influences. As we remember his death on April 6, Tango is a fitting close—wry, lean, and unmistakably Stravinsky.Without further ado, Igor Stravinsky's Tango — enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

”Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efdIssue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe

This week, we highlight new guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related discrimination. We also examine the Acting EEOC Chair's letters to 20 law firms regarding their DEI practices, as well as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Director's orders to retroactively investigate affirmative action plans. EEOC and DOJ Warn DEI Policies Could Violate Title VII  The EEOC and the DOJ jointly released guidance on discrimination in DEI policies at work, warning that these policies could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although the guidance does not define DEI, it provides clarity on the EEOC's focus moving forward. Acting EEOC Chair Targets Law Firms Acting Chair Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms warning that their employment policies intended to boost DEI may be illegal.  OFCCP Plans Retroactive DEI Enforcement A leaked internal email obtained by The Wall Street Journal reveals that newly appointed OFCCP Director Catherine Eschbach has ordered a review of affirmative action plans submitted by federal contractors during the prior administration. These reviews will be used to help determine whether a federal contractor should be investigated for discriminatory DEI practices. - Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw384 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.Landmark legal decisions have fundamentally shaped how we understand workplace harassment and discrimination, yet many employees remain unclear about their rights. In this eye-opening episode, we break down three pivotal Supreme Court cases that define what constitutes illegal behavior at work.The Harris v. Forklift Systems case established that harassment doesn't require psychological breakdown to be illegal - a crucial shift that protects workers before they reach crisis point. We explore how this case changed the focus from requiring mental injury to examining whether a reasonable person would find an environment hostile or abusive.Our conversation then turns to Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, which confirmed that same-sex harassment is equally prohibited under Title VII. This groundbreaking decision clarified that harassment isn't about who's attracted to whom - it's about whether someone faces differential treatment because of their sex, regardless of the harasser's gender.Finally, we dissect Vance v. Ball State University, which narrowly defined who qualifies as a "supervisor" in harassment cases - a distinction that significantly impacts employer liability. We examine the practical implications of this ruling and why it matters for accountability in the workplace.Beyond legal analysis, we reflect on broader questions about creating truly inclusive workplaces that go beyond minimum compliance. These cases provide essential guideposts for understanding workplace rights, but building respectful environments requires more than following legal rules - it demands active commitment from each of us.What can you do to foster a workplace where everyone feels valued and respected? Listen now to understand your rights and responsibilities in creating healthier work environments. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

As part of the Trump Administration's efforts to root out DEI and in response to President Trump's Executive Order 14230, Addressing Risks on Perkins Coie LLP, the EEOC Acting Chair of the EEOC sent lengthy inquiries to 20 major law firms, claiming their DEI practices may violate Title VII. The letters, issued with no charge pending, posed specific questions about employment practices, some reaching back 10 years.  Don't miss the discussion when David Fortney, Nita Beecher, and Leslie Silverman examine the legal basis for the letters, whether a response is required, and how the letters may help employers understand just what “illegal DEI” is.Contact Fortney & Scott: Tweet us at @fortneyscott Follow us on LinkedIn Email us at info@fortneyscott.com Thank you for listening! https://www.fortneyscott.com/

This Day in Legal History: Selma to Montgomery MarchOn March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led the beginning of the third and final Selma to Montgomery march, a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement. The march was a direct response to the violent suppression of earlier demonstrations and the systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the Jim Crow South. Just weeks earlier, peaceful marchers had been brutally attacked by law enforcement on “Bloody Sunday,” as they attempted to cross Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge. That violence was broadcast nationwide, shocking the conscience of the country and mobilizing public support for voting rights legislation.The march that began on March 21 was federally sanctioned, with U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. ruling that the demonstrators had a constitutional right to march. Protected by federal troops and the National Guard, the marchers traveled 54 miles over five days, arriving at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery on March 25. Their numbers swelled to more than 25,000 by the time they reached the steps of the Capitol, where Dr. King delivered his famous "How Long, Not Long" speech, declaring that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”This sustained campaign of nonviolent resistance laid the moral and legal foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law just five months later. The Act outlawed discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes and empowered federal oversight of voter registration in areas with histories of discrimination. The Selma marches highlighted the power of constitutional protest and judicial protection of civil rights, reinforcing the essential role of federal courts in safeguarding democratic participation.There was once a towering oak tree that stood firm in the wind and, under it, a reed that bent whenever the wind blew. A tyrant came to the land of the reed and oak, stomping his boot wherever he pleased. The oak resisted and was chopped down. The reed, seeing this, bent deeper–letting the boot press it into the mud day after day. Years passed and the reed, still alive, whispered to the boot: “See? I'm wise – I survived.”The boot replied, “You're not wise. You're soft. The oak was crushed because it defied us. But you? I step on you because I can.” Then the boot ground the reed into the dirt—without another thought. In a move that underscores the growing influence of executive power over traditionally independent legal institutions, President Trump rescinded an executive order targeting Paul Weiss after the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono services aligned with his administration's political goals. The announcement followed a private meeting with firm chairman Brad Karp and was accompanied by a sweeping commitment: no DEI policies, merit-based hiring, and representation of clients across the political spectrum—including those favored by the administration.Trump had previously sanctioned Paul Weiss by revoking its security clearance and threatening client contracts, citing the involvement of former partner Mark Pomerantz in the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Trump. That campaign against Paul Weiss, part of a broader effort targeting over 20 legal entities, seemed aimed at punishing firms perceived as adversarial while promoting loyalty through coercion.Karp's public gratitude for the order's withdrawal—and his reported acknowledgment of “wrongdoing” by Pomerantz—reads less like a principled resolution and more like a compelled confession by a simpering coward. Paul Weiss, a firm with deep Democratic ties, has now aligned itself with a president actively dismantling traditional norms around legal independence, seemingly in exchange for restored access and favor.This capitulation signals more than just a thaw in Trump's icy relationship with Big Law—it may represent a strategic blueprint: punish, pressure, and reward compliance – like with dogs. Legal experts and those with eyes to see warn that this redefinition of executive influence risks turning law firms into instruments of political will rather than defenders from it.Trump Rescinds Paul Weiss Order as Firm Pledges $40 Million (2)Frustrated by constant helicopter and seaplane noise, New York lawmakers are pushing for a first-of-its-kind "noise tax" targeting non-essential flights over the city. The proposal, led by state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for tourist and luxury air travel, while exempting essential services like medical transport, law enforcement, and construction. The revenue—expected to reach $10–15 million annually—would fund the state's Environmental Protection Fund, a move Gonzalez says is critical amid federal environmental funding cuts under President Trump.The bill reflects growing anger among residents across socio-economic lines who say aerial traffic disrupts daily life, especially in parks and along waterfronts. App-based services like Blade have exacerbated the issue by making chartered air travel more accessible to the wealthy, turning the skies into noisy corridors over neighborhoods and landmarks.Supporters, including advocacy group Stop the Chop NY/NJ, hope the tax discourages unnecessary flights by raising costs. However, the helicopter industry, represented by Vertical Aviation International, strongly opposes the bill. They argue that aviation regulation is solely under federal jurisdiction and warn the tax could trigger lawsuits and threaten jobs. The group says it has already taken steps to reduce noise but acknowledges that changing flight paths often just shifts the problem from one area to another.The legislation has passed the state Senate but faces challenges in the Assembly, where it stalled last year. With a budget deadline approaching on April 1, negotiations continue.New Yorkers Sick of Hovering Helicopters Prompt Bid to Tax NoiseA federal judge has ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely broke privacy laws by giving Elon Musk's anti-fraud team, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), unrestricted access to sensitive personal data on millions of Americans. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland blocked any further data sharing and criticized the agency for turning over vast amounts of information without proper oversight. The judge described DGE's actions as a "fishing expedition" based more on suspicion than evidence, warning against overreach in the name of rooting out fraud.The data in question comes from the SSA's “Numident” database—its so-called “crown jewels”—which holds Social Security numbers, medical records, banking data, and more, some dating back to the 1930s. SSA officials admitted DGE staff had access to a “massive amount” of records, and privacy advocates said the team was embedded in the agency without vetting or training. The ruling requires DGE to delete any data it accessed.The decision is a significant setback for DGE and comes on the heels of another ruling limiting Musk's authority to shut down USAID, since he lacks Senate confirmation. President Trump's administration has defended DGE's mission, calling it a necessary tool to cut waste, but the court noted a disturbing lack of concern for citizen privacy. SSA's acting head, Leland Dudek, expressed confusion over the order's breadth and said it might require cutting off access for all SSA staff.Meanwhile, labor unions and advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit welcomed the decision, saying it defends Americans' data from unlawful government intrusion. DGE's aggressive tactics have drawn scrutiny across other agencies as well, with courts allowing access in some departments but blocking it in more sensitive areas like the Treasury.Judge stops Musk's team from 'unbridled access' to Social Security private data | ReutersChief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status on October 1, creating the first appellate court vacancy during President Donald Trump's second term. Sykes, appointed by President George W. Bush and once considered a potential Supreme Court nominee under Trump, has served over three decades in both the Wisconsin and federal judiciary. Her transition to semi-retirement allows Trump to nominate a new full-time judge to the influential Chicago-based court, which currently holds a narrow 6–5 Republican-appointed majority.Sykes cited a desire to spend more time with family as her reason for stepping back from active service. She becomes the second federal appellate judge to announce senior status since Trump's return to office, following Judge Sandra Ikuta of the 9th Circuit. While four appellate vacancies remain from President Biden's term, Sykes's departure offers Trump his first direct opportunity to shape the 7th Circuit bench.Sykes has authored notable decisions, including one upholding Wisconsin's voter ID law and a dissent in a landmark 2017 case where the 7th Circuit ruled that LGBTQ employees are protected under Title VII. She criticized the majority in that case for overstepping legislative boundaries—a position later rejected by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).7th Circuit's Sykes to take senior status, creating vacancy for Trump | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.This week, we close with a piece as enduring and elemental as the legal principles we often discuss: Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, specifically its iconic Prelude. Born on this day, March 21, 1685, Bach remains one of the foundational figures in Western music—a composer whose work balances mathematical precision with deep emotional resonance. Though he wrote for kings and churches, his music speaks to the full range of human experience, from joy to lament, duty to wonder.The Prelude to this suite is among the most recognizable solo cello pieces ever written, opening with a simple G major arpeggio that expands into a flowing, almost improvisational meditation. It's unaccompanied, yet complete—no orchestra, no embellishment, just one instrument revealing infinite depth. Written around 1717–1723 during Bach's time in Köthen, the suites were not published in his lifetime and lay in relative obscurity until cellist Pablo Casals rediscovered them in the 20th century.The piece carries a quiet authority that feels apt for reflection—whether on a ruling, a civil rights march, or a government in turmoil. It's structured, yes, but never rigid; expressive, but never indulgent. The Prelude doesn't declare or argue. It invites, it unfolds. It reminds us, like authority best wielded, that elegance lies in clarity and that restraint can be a form of power.This week, we let the steady resonance of Bach's Prelude accompany us out.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, the Prelude. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Wendy Sellers discusses the latest clarifications from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on the legal boundaries surrounding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. As affirmative action ends in early 2025, Wendy elaborates on how to ensure DEI initiatives remain compliant with federal law. Discover the differences between legal and illegal DEI practices, such as making employment decisions based on race or sex, and setting quotas or exclusive programs. The episode also features insights from Andrea Lucas, acting chair of the EEOC, on 11 ways to diversify workforces without engaging in unlawful discrimination. From adjusting job descriptions and standardizing interviews to auditing privilege and recruiting inclusively, these methods aim to foster equality without breaching Title VII. Additionally, explore the EEOC's new publications aimed at addressing DEI-related discrimination in the workplace, defining what constitutes unlawful actions, and guiding both employers and employees on how to handle discrimination cases. Stay legally compliant and promote genuine inclusivity in your organization by tuning into this crucial discussion.   A few resources:  EEOC NEW Publication #1 - March 19, 2025 https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-dei-related-discrimination-work EEOC NEW Publication #2 - March 19, 2025 https://www.eeoc.gov/what-do-if-you-experience-discrimination-related-dei-work This was the podcast interview with Andrea Lucas in June 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8j1q-paDkQ Also, on March 17, 2025, there was a Press Release that Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms requesting information about D E I-related employment practices.   https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-acting-chair-andrea-lucas-sends-letters-20-law-firms-requesting-information-about-dei

Organizations face mounting pressure to balance legal compliance with fostering workplace diversity. Sarah Goodman, counsel at Offit Kurman, discusses how Title VII combats workplace discrimination and outlines the challenges posed by recent White House executive orders targeting inclusion and diversity (I&D) efforts. Explore Goodman's insights and actionable steps, from consulting legal counsel to implementing merit-based initiatives.Resources from this week's episode:2025 State of the Workplace Report - https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/research/2025-shrm-state-of-the-workplaceCHRO Priorities & Perspectives Report - https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/research/chro-priorities-perspectivesSubscribe to the All Things Work newsletter to get the latest episodes, expert insights, and additional resources delivered straight to your inbox: https://shrm.co/fg444d  ---Explore SHRM's all-new flagships. Content curated by experts. Created for you weekly. Each content journey features engaging podcasts, video, articles, and groundbreaking newsletters tailored to meet your unique needs in your organization and career. Learn More: https://shrm.co/coy63r

This week, we're covering a change in leadership at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the reinstatement of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) member Gwynne Wilcox (restoring a crucial quorum), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) focus on new enforcement priorities. New Leadership at the DOL Lori Chavez-DeRemer was sworn in as the U.S. Secretary of Labor on March 11, 2025, after receiving bipartisan support from the Senate. Secretary Chavez-DeRemer, a former congresswoman with strong backing from organized labor, is generally viewed as a centrist figure. NLRB Quorum Restored—for Now President Trump made waves when he fired NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox shortly after taking office. However, on March 6, a federal judge in the District of Columbia held that Wilcox was “illegally” fired and instructed the NLRB Chair to restore Wilcox's access to the Board and allow her to serve out the remainder of her five-year term. EEOC's New Enforcement Priorities  While many had anticipated a reduction in EEOC enforcement under the new administration, a series of announcements indicate that the agency is instead shifting its priorities and stepping up investigations in new areas, such as anti-American bias, antisemitism, and binary sex and related rights. Additionally, the EEOC has recently issued letters to 20 major law firms, raising concerns about their diversity and inclusion programs. The agency is investigating whether these programs may involve unlawful disparate treatment or classification based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, in potential violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers should take note, as this development may signal a broader enforcement strategy. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw382 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just declared war on corporate DEI programs, and every employee needs to understand what this means for their workplace rights. In this explosive episode of the Employee Survival Guide, employment attorney Mark delves into the EEOC's dramatic new stance that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives are fundamentally illegal under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.The federal government, through Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, has taken the position that DEI programs create unlawful quotas and preferences based on protected characteristics like race and sex. Despite their widespread adoption across major corporations in recent years, these initiatives now face extinction as the EEOC begins targeting employers - starting with warning letters to twenty major law firms threatening enforcement action.Mark provides crucial context about what makes DEI programs potentially discriminatory, explaining how the Supreme Court's decision abolishing affirmative action set the stage for this dramatic policy shift. You'll learn what constitutes illegal preferential treatment, why "reverse discrimination" isn't a separate legal category, and what employees should do if they believe they're experiencing discrimination related to DEI work.EEOC and Justice Department Warn Against Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

When his 90-day probation period expired, he revealed he had begun taking female hormones four months before he was hired. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

The university has the right to uphold its sincere Christian religious beliefs and require its employees to do the same. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of […]

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circut Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the "background circumstances" that the employer discriminates against majority group members.The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to answer the question of whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim, a majority-group plaintiff must show background circumstances to support the suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majority group. Oral argument is scheduled for February 26th.Featuring:Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

This Day in Legal History: 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution On February 27, 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, formally limiting the president to two terms in office. This amendment was a direct response to Franklin D. Roosevelt's unprecedented four-term presidency, which spanned the Great Depression and World War II. Before Roosevelt, no president had served more than two terms, following the precedent set by George Washington. However, there was no constitutional restriction preventing a president from seeking additional terms.  Roosevelt's long tenure raised concerns about excessive executive power and the potential for an elected leader to hold office indefinitely. After his death in 1945, Congress moved to ensure that no future president could serve more than two terms. The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the required number of states in 1951. It states that no person may be elected president more than twice or serve more than ten years in cases where a vice president assumes the role due to a predecessor's death or resignation.  Since its ratification, the 22nd Amendment has shaped U.S. presidential politics, preventing any leader from holding office for more than eight years. Some have argued that it protects democracy by preventing the concentration of power, while others believe it limits voter choice. Despite occasional calls for repeal, the amendment remains in effect, reinforcing the principle of regular transitions of power.A federal court is scrutinizing the role of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) in cutting U.S. government spending, raising questions about transparency and legality. At a hearing, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly repeatedly pressed a Justice Department lawyer on Musk's authority but received vague answers. Multiple lawsuits argue that DGE, which operates with secrecy, wields power beyond what is constitutionally allowed for agencies that require congressional approval or Senate confirmation.Despite Musk's public claims of leadership, the White House insists he is not an official DGE employee. Courts have been divided on the issue, with some judges refusing to block DGE's actions due to a lack of clear evidence of immediate harm. However, Judge Jeannette Vargas temporarily restricted DGE's access to Treasury Department systems over concerns about unauthorized data access.The Trump administration's shifting characterizations of DGE—sometimes calling it an agency, other times not—have further complicated legal battles. One judge described it as a “Goldilocks entity,” molded to fit legal needs. While some courts are hesitant to act without stronger evidence, ongoing lawsuits seek to bring DGE's operations into clearer legal scrutiny.'Where is Mr. Musk in all of this?' Judges question secrecy of DOGE's activities | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who claims she was denied a promotion and later demoted due to her sexual orientation. Ames alleges that in 2019, her gay supervisor promoted a less qualified gay woman and replaced her with a gay man. The case challenges a legal standard that requires plaintiffs from majority groups—such as white or heterosexual individuals—to provide extra evidence of workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Ames' lawyer argued that Title VII protects all individuals from discrimination, not just historically marginalized groups. The state of Ohio, her former employer, countered that Ames had not proven bias, noting that decision-makers may not have even known her sexual orientation. Some justices expressed concern that ruling for Ames could flood the courts with discrimination claims. Others questioned whether the heightened standard for majority-group plaintiffs improperly excludes valid cases.  The case comes amid increasing lawsuits from white and straight workers alleging "reverse discrimination," as well as political pushback against diversity and inclusion programs. A ruling in Ames' favor could make it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to challenge employment decisions, potentially reshaping workplace discrimination law.US Supreme Court hears straight woman's 'reverse' discrimination case | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's decision to designate Latin American drug cartels as terrorist organizations introduces new legal risks for U.S. businesses and migrants. The February 19 designation applies to groups like the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua, allowing the Justice Department to prosecute cartel leaders for terrorism. However, legal experts warn that U.S. and foreign companies operating in cartel-controlled regions could also face prosecution if they make payments to these organizations, which could be considered material support for terrorism.  This concern is not hypothetical—similar cases have occurred before. In 2022, French cement company Lafarge pleaded guilty and paid $778 million in fines for making payments to terrorist-designated groups in Syria to keep its operations running. Given Mexico's status as the U.S.'s largest trading partner, businesses must reassess their dealings in high-risk areas.  Beyond corporate liability, migrants who pay cartels for border crossings or send money to cartel-influenced regions could also be prosecuted. Additionally, drug-related offenses linked to designated cartels could carry harsher penalties, including a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for narcoterrorism—double the usual drug trafficking penalty. The designation thus has sweeping implications for both corporate compliance and immigration enforcement.Trump's terrorist label for cartels raises prosecution risks for companies | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes, I review the latest misguided foray into tech policy from the Trump administration. The White House has issued a memorandum condemning foreign digital services taxes (DSTs), arguing that they unfairly target American tech companies. The memo warns that unless these taxes are repealed, retaliatory tariffs will be imposed. However, this stance appears to protect Big Tech rather than uphold economic fairness, as these taxes exist to counter profit-shifting tactics that allow tech giants to avoid local taxation. The U.S. frequently applies its own extraterritorial laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the CLOUD Act, yet objects when other countries enforce similar policies on American firms.The memorandum frames the issue as an attack on U.S. businesses, but every country has the right to tax corporations operating within its borders. DSTs primarily ensure that companies pay taxes where they generate revenue rather than in low-tax havens. The U.S. position ignores the broader global tax landscape and the rationale behind these policies, opting instead to shield Silicon Valley from accountability.If the U.S. enacts tariffs in response, it could trigger a trade war that harms American farmers, manufacturers, and consumers while preserving Big Tech's profits. The memorandum's real purpose seems to be maintaining an uneven playing field where American firms operate abroad without the same obligations as local businesses.Big Tech Protection: U.S. Picks A Trade Fight To Defend Tech Firms This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A case in which the Court will decide whether a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Where should the line be drawn in the debate between the rights of persons to hold religious beliefs and transgender advocates when it comes to government policies? Whether teachers or others can be compelled to use names and pronouns for students who identify as transgender is becoming a common battleground. The school district in Brownsburg, Indiana ordered Mr. Kluge to use incorrect pronouns, which he believes are a lie. The school moved to fire him when he expressed a religious objection—without considering any Title VII religious accommodations, as the law requires. Once Mr. Kluge suggested he use all students’ last names like a coach, the district relented. But school officials changed their minds when some students and teachers complained, saying no future accommodations would be allowed. They forced Mr. Kluge to either violate his religious beliefs with his own words, face termination, or resign. Mr. Kluge resigned under protest and filed suit under Title VII for religious discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, under Hardison’s more than a de minimise cost test for undue hardship. After the Supreme Court held in Groff that undue hardship requires more—a substantial burden in the overall context of the employer’s business, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. But the district court’s analysis did not change. Mr. Kluge’s case is now back before the Seventh Circuit, which will be one of the first appellate courts to grapple with Groff’s new standard. Featuring: David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom (Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is an interview from the Real Food Stories podcast with Heather Carey.  Mark joined Heather for the episode about Menopause in the Workplace and the conversations we need to have. Navigating menopause in the workplace is a pressing issue that deserves attention. Given that nearly half of the global workforce consists of women, understanding the challenges they face during this transitional phase is crucial to fostering a supportive work environment. Join us as we explore the intricate relationship between menopause and work, discussing its implications for both employees and employers.In this episode, we delve into the crucial statistics around menopause, emphasizing how approximately 47 million women enter this phase annually and the significant impact it has on their professional lives. Many women experience symptoms severe enough to interfere with work, leading to staggering economic repercussions for organizations. The facts reveal that $1.8 billion is lost each year due to work-related absences tied to menopause. With the knowledge that menopause is not just a personal issue but a workplace concern, the need for dialogue and awareness is more urgent than ever. We also take a closer look at the legal landscape surrounding menopause in the workplace. While protections exist under various laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the specifics regarding menopause under the Americans with Disabilities Act remain uncertain. Through candid discussions and expert insights, we unpack what women can do to advocate for themselves and seek the accommodations they need. Ultimately, the episode encourages employers to recognize their responsibility in supporting their female workforce. By fostering open discussions and implementing policies that accommodate menopause, organizations can build a culture of trust and empower employees to thrive. Tune in and discover how together we can raise awareness and effect positive change for women in the workplace. Don't miss out on this vital conversation—be sure to subscribe, share, and leave us a review! If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Courts; Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.Esteras v. U.S. (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.Perttu v. Richards (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (February 26) - Labor & Employment Law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (March 3) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, International Law; Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, (March 3) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (March 4) - International Law, Gun Crime; Issue(s): (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (March 4) - Administrative Law & Regulation; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.Featuring:Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPJonathan A. Segal, Partner and Managing Principal, Duane Morris InstituteRichard A. Simpson, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Wiley Rein LLPWill Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee

Today we delve into the world of Title VII by looking at the pending case in Carter v. Transp. Workers Union of Am. Local 556. The focus of our discussion will be on the paper from Blaine Hutchison in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, entitled Title VII's Religious Liberty Rules in Carter (here). Blaine is joined by one of the premier experts in the field of employment law and also my old professor, Bruce Cameron. As part of this conversation, we lay out some history for Religious Accommodation claims, the importance of protecting the conscience, the freewheelin' accommodation claim (for more, see this), the background in Carter, and more. Professor Bruce Cameron (profile) teaches employment discrimination law at Regent University School of Law and has been litigating religious accommodation cases for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for four decades. Blaine Hutchinson (profile) is a staff attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

Civil Rights: Can a health insurance provider be held liable under Title VII for denying coverage for gender-affirming care? - Argued: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 19:33:49 EDT

This Day in Legal History: Bell and Gray File PatentsOn February 14, 1876, both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray filed patent applications for the invention of the telephone, setting off one of the most famous legal battles in U.S. history. Bell's lawyer submitted his paperwork to the U.S. Patent Office just hours before Gray's, leading to a dispute over who truly invented the device. Gray's filing was a "caveat," an intention to patent, while Bell's was a full application, giving him a legal advantage. When the patent was granted to Bell on March 7, 1876, Gray challenged it, arguing that Bell had improperly incorporated elements of Gray's liquid transmitter design.The controversy led to numerous lawsuits, with Gray and others accusing Bell of fraud and claiming he had seen Gray's filing before finalizing his own. Despite these challenges, the courts consistently ruled in Bell's favor, affirming his rights to the telephone patent. This legal victory gave Bell's company, later known as AT&T, control over the rapidly growing telephone industry. The case highlighted issues of patent timing, intellectual property rights, and legal strategy in technological innovation.The Bell-Gray dispute remains a landmark moment in patent law, demonstrating how the slightest timing difference can determine the outcome of major technological advancements. It also underscored the competitive nature of the late 19th-century invention boom, where multiple inventors often worked on similar ideas simultaneously.Democratic attorneys general from 16 states issued guidance defending diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI) programs against recent executive orders from former President Trump. Led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Joy Campbell and Illinois AG Kwame Raoul, they argued that DEI initiatives remain legal under existing anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Trump administration's orders call for eliminating DEI efforts from federal agencies and scrutinizing private-sector programs, conflating lawful diversity policies with illegal hiring preferences, the AGs said.Major corporations like Google and Amazon have adjusted or rebranded their DEI initiatives in response to legal uncertainty. The guidance clarifies that policies promoting workplace diversity—such as broad recruitment efforts and impact assessments—are legally distinct from unlawful hiring preferences. Courts have long upheld employers' ability to consider the effects of their policies on different groups to prevent discrimination claims.Meanwhile, Republican AGs, including Missouri's Andrew Bailey, are pushing businesses to abandon DEI programs. Bailey recently sued Starbucks, accusing the company of violating civil rights laws through its DEI initiatives. The conflicting state-level actions highlight the growing legal and political battle over corporate diversity policies.Democratic AGs Defend DEI Against ‘Misleading' Trump DirectivesTwo federal judges will decide whether Elon Musk's government cost-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), can access sensitive U.S. government systems. Since his appointment by President Trump last month, Musk has led efforts to eliminate wasteful spending, but critics argue his team lacks legal authority to handle Treasury payment systems and sensitive agency data.Judge Jeannette Vargas in Manhattan will consider a request from Democratic attorneys general to extend a temporary block preventing DOGE from accessing Treasury systems that process trillions in payments. The states argue Musk's team could misuse personal data and disrupt funding for health clinics, preschools, and climate programs.In Washington, Judge John Bates will review a separate request from unions seeking to prevent DOGE from accessing records at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Bates previously ruled in favor of the Trump administration but will now reconsider after the unions amended their lawsuit.Democratic AGs have also filed a separate lawsuit claiming Musk's appointment is unconstitutional and seeking to block him from making personnel decisions or canceling contracts. While courts have blocked several of Trump's initiatives, his administration has continued firing government workers and cutting foreign aid, mostly targeting programs opposed by conservatives.Musk's DOGE team: Judges to consider barring it from US government systems | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore funding for hundreds of foreign aid contractors affected by a 90-day funding freeze. The ruling temporarily blocks the administration from canceling foreign aid contracts and grants that were in place before Trump took office on January 20.  The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by two health organizations that rely on U.S. funding for overseas programs. The Trump administration had halted all foreign aid payments, claiming the pause was necessary to review program efficiency and alignment with policy priorities. However, Judge Amir Ali ruled that the government had not provided a rational justification for the sweeping suspension, which disrupted agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations worldwide.  Trump has also ordered federal agencies to prepare for major job cuts, leading to layoffs among government workers without full job protections. His administration has already removed or sidelined hundreds of civil servants and top officials, part of a broader effort to reshape the federal workforce and consolidate power among political allies.Judge orders US to restore funds for foreign aid programs | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the release of Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein, three days after he was jailed for allegedly violating pretrial release conditions in a tax fraud case. Goldstein, a prominent appellate lawyer and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, was indicted last month on 22 counts of tax evasion related to his high-stakes poker winnings and alleged misuse of law firm funds to cover debts.Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Sullivan ruled that there was insufficient evidence to keep Goldstein incarcerated for allegedly concealing cryptocurrency transactions. However, the judge imposed new restrictions, including monitoring his internet use and prohibiting cryptocurrency transfers.Prosecutors claimed Goldstein secretly moved millions in crypto after his initial release, prompting his second arrest. Goldstein argued the transactions occurred in 2023 and that he did not own the accounts in question. While the judge found Goldstein's evidence created enough doubt to justify his release, he also suggested Goldstein may still have access to hidden funds that could enable him to flee. Goldstein has pleaded not guilty, and his legal team maintains the government's case lacks proof.Supreme Court veteran Goldstein wins release again in tax crimes case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.Gustav Mahler (1860–1911) was a visionary composer and conductor whose symphonies bridged the late Romantic and early modern eras. Known for his deeply personal and expansive works, Mahler infused his music with themes of life, death, and transcendence. His Symphony No. 2, often called the Resurrection Symphony, is one of his most ambitious compositions, blending massive orchestral forces with choral elements to explore the journey from despair to spiritual renewal.The symphony's fifth and final movement, Im Tempo des Scherzo – Aufersteh'n, is a dramatic culmination of the work's themes. It begins in chaos, with the orchestra depicting the terror of the apocalypse, before gradually moving toward light and resolution. The music builds in intensity until the choir enters softly, singing the text of Friedrich Klopstock's Resurrection Ode, which speaks of rising again after death. Mahler expands on these words, adding his own lines about redemption and eternal life.The movement swells to one of the most powerful climaxes in symphonic history, with soaring brass, thunderous percussion, and a triumphant chorus proclaiming victory over death. The final moments are a breathtaking ascent, as the music dissolves into radiant serenity. This movement is more than just a finale; it is an emotional and philosophical journey, offering a sense of transcendence that has resonated with audiences for over a century.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2, the fifth and final movement – Im Tempo des Scherzo.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The regulatory environment for employers is undergoing significant changes. President Trump's removal of an NLRB member, the NLRB's general counsel, and two EEOC commissioners has left those agencies without a quorum, delaying decisions and creating uncertainty for employers. Meanwhile, the repeal of Executive Order 11246 has ended affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and grantees. In this week's episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Erin E. Schaefer and Courtney McFate provide clarity amid these shifts. Employers should prepare for procedural delays from both agencies and reassess their compliance obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state or municipal contracts in light of reduced affirmative action requirements. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw377 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

In episode 185, Coffey talks with Kara Kelley about the impact of President Trump's affirmative action order, how not to respond to employee criticism, and nervous candidates.They discuss the implications for federal contractors following the President's rescission of Executive Order 11246, eliminating most affirmative action program and DEI requirements; the ongoing relevance of Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws; JP Morgan's return-to-office mandate and their decision to shut down employee feedback channels; how hiring managers should handle candidate nervousness in interviews; and the importance of focusing on job-relevant criteria in hiring decisions.Links to stuff they talked about are on our website at https://goodmorninghr.com/EP185 and include the following topics:Trump Rescinds Affirmative Action by Contractors Based on Race, GenderENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY2025: A Comprehensive Analysis of Class Action LitigationJPMorgan Just Decided That Employee Feedback Doesn't Matter. It's a Spectacularly Bad DecisionHiring Managers of Reddit: How likely are you to give someone a second chance if they seemed nervous during a phone screening and froze up on one question?Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—Bulletproof Background Checks. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Kara works with Dental Practice Leaders to develop strategic HR systems that engage their team and strengthen their practice. She is the founder and CEO of Clinical HR LLC, a Human Resources advisory firm for dental and medical practices. Kara focuses on cultivating leadership skills, managing employee relations issues, and implementing competitive total rewards systems. She also works with practices to develop employee policies and establish compliant HR systems.Though Kara initially enrolled in a Marketing degree program, she took an HR course for a general business credit and fell in love with it, eventually earning a B.S. in Business with a concentration in Human Resource Management. Kara is a Society for Human Resource Management Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP) and holds Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) designation from the HR Certification Institute (HRCI). She is also an Everything DiSC Workplace Certified Facilitator and a Five Behaviors Certified Practitioner.A life-long learner who is never content with the status quo, Kara serves on several professional boards and committees. She is the Co-Chair of the Mentorship Committee and a member of the Legal & Legislative committee for Austin SHRM. Kara is currently serving as President of the National Speakers Association Austin chapter. In 2022, she helped found the ADMC Memorial Foundation, a scholarship program for new practice owners.Kara Kelley can be reached athttps://www.facebook.com/ClinicalHRLLC https://twitter.com/ClinicalHR http://www.instagram.com/clinicalhrllc https://www.linkedin.com/in/karadkelleyAbout Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, licensed private investigator, business strategist, HR consultant, and registered yoga teacher.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations and due diligence firm helping risk-averse clients make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Imperative delivers in-depth employment background investigations, know-your-customer and anti-money laundering compliance, and due diligence investigations to more than 300 risk-averse corporate clients across the US, and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike shares his insight from 25 years of HR-entrepreneurship on the Good Morning, HR podcast, where each week he talks to business leaders about bringing people together to create value for customers, shareholders, and community.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence by FW, Inc. and has twice been recognized as the North Texas HR Professional of the Year. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and is a volunteer leader with the SHRM Texas State Council and the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce.Mike is a certified Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute and a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP). He is also a Yoga Alliance registered yoga teacher (RYT-200).Mike and his very patient wife of 27 years are empty nesters in Fort Worth.Learning Objectives:Respond to changes in affirmative action and diversity initiative expectations for federal contractors.Develop effective change-management strategies for workplace policy shifts that avoid National Labor Relations Act claims.Build employee-selection systems that focus on job-relevant attributes.

In this episode, Wendy Sellers, The HR lady, delves into the recent announcements from the White House that could significantly impact HR operations. She clarifies the distinction between affirmative action and broader Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, debunking the misconception that diversity initiatives are banned. Exploring the changes in government policy, Wendy explains the revocation of an executive order from 1965 concerning federal contractors and affirmative action. Despite these shifts, key laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act remain unchanged, ensuring protection against employment discrimination. Wendy emphasizes the importance of fostering inclusive environments through DEI, focusing on skill development, unbiased hiring practices, and supportive work environments. She highlights that discrimination based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity is still unlawful, regardless of political opinions. Stay updated with Wendy as she continues to unravel the complexities of recent legislative updates affecting the workplace.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence? The case was decided on January 15, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The default standard of proof in American civil litigation is preponderance of the evidence, and courts only deviate from this standard in three specific circumstances: when a statute explicitly requires a heightened standard, when the Constitution requires it, or in certain rare cases where the government seeks unusual coercive action against an individual (like revoking citizenship). None of these exceptions applies to FLSA exemption cases. The FLSA itself is silent on the standard of proof, which typically means Congress intended the default preponderance standard to apply. The case does not implicate constitutional rights, and it does not involve unusual government coercion; instead, it is akin to Title VII employment discrimination cases where the Court has consistently applied the preponderance standard. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, clarifying that courts apply the default “preponderance” rule unless Congress alters it or the Constitution forbids it. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Full episode transcript HERE.  The first awful week ends with March for Madness – IT'S HEAVY ON THE MADNESS! Your Feminist Buzzkils are out here using facts and belly laughs to break down the early returns of how the anti-abobo gorgons will fuck with our rights. Let's snap you out of your facism fatigue, stat! Every one of you is an abobo warrior, and we salute you (in a very normal human way). Trump's first week ended with the anti-abortion mayhem known as the March for Life, AKA Unbornaroo. For 52 years they have taken over the Capital for their annual patriarchal parade of fetus worship and ovarian oppression. BUT, as always, we've got the play by play! We're bringing y'all: their lies and their plans on where they will prioritize creating policy to further destroy access to abortion care. AND, joining us is Constitutional law scholar Dr. Michele Goodwin to explain the devastating blows we can expect from their shenanigans. From plans to reinstate the Global Gag rule to how Christian legal firms have spent DECADES turning the courts into dogma distribution centers, one judge at a time.  All this, PLUS, the latest on the anti-abortion “terrorists” Trump pardoned this week and all of the abobo-related news you need to know. Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our OpSave pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking  HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social SPECIAL GUEST:Dr. Michele Goodwin IG/X: @MicheleBGoodwin Bluesky: @MicheleBGoodwin.bsky.social GUEST LINKS:Dr. Michele Goodwin Website“On the Issues with Michele Goodwin” Podcast “Policing the Womb” by Michele Goodwin NEWS DUMP:Lawsuit Alleges Vermont Tracks Pregnant Women Deemed Unsuitable for ParenthoodMississippi Politician Files ‘Contraception Begins at Erection Act'Instagram Censors and Blurs Aid Access PostsGovernment Website Offering Reproductive Health Information Goes OfflineWhat Is the Global Gag Rule?What Leaving the Who Means for the US And the WorldDefending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal GovernmentSenate Dems Block ‘Deliberately Misleading' GOP Bill Attacking Reproductive Care EPISODE LINKS:Hypocrites Unmasked WebsiteExpose Fake Clinics1/27 WEBINAR: Gender Liberation Movement Mass CallADOPT-A-CLINIC WISHLIST: Joan G Lovering Health CenterSTREAM: No One Asked You on JoltOperation Save AbortionSIGN: Repeal the Comstock ActEMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK PodcastInstagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontTALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

This Day in Legal History: Cuba Suspended from OASOn January 22, 1962, the Organization of American States (OAS) took the historic step of suspending Cuba from its membership. This decision followed the Cuban Revolution, which saw Fidel Castro's government align itself with communist ideologies and the Soviet Union, marking a stark departure from the democratic and anti-communist principles upheld by the OAS. The suspension, supported by 14 member states against six dissenting votes, highlighted Cold War tensions and the fear of communist influence spreading across the Americas. It marked the first time the OAS had taken such a measure against a member nation, emphasizing the geopolitical divide between the United States and Soviet-aligned nations.The resolution to suspend Cuba was rooted in Article 8 of the OAS Charter, which mandated respect for representative democracy as a condition of membership. Cuba's embrace of communism and its growing ties with the USSR, particularly during events like the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis, deepened the rift with its neighbors. The suspension effectively isolated Cuba from multilateral political cooperation within the Americas but did little to curtail its growing influence among leftist movements globally.Efforts to reintegrate Cuba into the OAS came decades later. On June 3, 2009, the OAS voted to lift the suspension, acknowledging changing political landscapes and calls for normalization. However, Cuba immediately rejected the offer, citing its disinterest in rejoining the organization. The Cuban government viewed the OAS as a tool of U.S. hegemony and incompatible with its principles. The 1962 suspension remains a critical moment in the history of inter-American relations, illustrating the enduring complexities of ideology and diplomacy during the Cold War.Twenty-two Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco filed lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The lawsuits, filed in federal courts in Boston, Seattle, and Maryland, argue that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.The lawsuits emphasize the constitutional foundation of birthright citizenship, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which upheld citizenship rights for children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents. Plaintiffs assert that Trump's order represents an unconstitutional overreach of presidential authority and an attempt to bypass established constitutional and legal principles.If implemented, the order would leave over 150,000 children born annually without citizenship, rendering them stateless and depriving them of rights such as voting, working lawfully, and accessing federal benefits like Medicaid. States also face increased financial and administrative burdens, including the loss of federal funding for healthcare and education programs that are tied to citizenship status.Among the plaintiffs are civil rights groups, immigrant advocacy organizations, and an expectant mother with temporary protected status. The lawsuits seek declaratory and injunctive relief, aiming to prevent the enforcement of what they call a flagrantly unconstitutional policy. Early hearings on temporary restraining orders are scheduled in some jurisdictions, marking this as one of the first major legal battles of Trump's administration​.22 Democratic-led states sue over Trump's birthright citizenship order | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's executive order delaying enforcement of a bipartisan law banning TikTok has plunged the platform into legal uncertainty. The law, passed with overwhelming support in Congress and signed by President Joe Biden, required TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest the platform by January 19. It also imposed heavy penalties—$5,000 per user—on service providers like Apple and Google for noncompliance.Trump's order pauses enforcement for 75 days and directs the Justice Department to assure service providers that they won't face liability during this period. However, legal experts argue the order offers limited assurance. Executive orders cannot override duly enacted laws, and courts generally do not view such directives as binding. Moreover, the president retains the authority to alter the order or enforce the law selectively, adding to the uncertainty.This action marks a rare instance of a president attempting to circumvent a law passed by both houses of Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. Legal analysts note that while Congress could sue to enforce the law, courts might dismiss such a case as a political question or national security issue. Meanwhile, service providers are exposed to billions in potential penalties and shareholder lawsuits if they defy the law based on Trump's directive.Despite the pause, TikTok remains unavailable on major U.S. app stores, reflecting the precarious legal and financial risks for service providers caught between compliance with federal law and Trump's temporary reprieve. This legal limbo underscores tensions between the executive branch, Congress, and the tech industry over the regulation of foreign-owned platforms.Trump executive order leaves TikTok in legal limbo, for now | ReutersPresident Donald Trump issued an executive order revoking the authority of the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to enforce diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives among federal contractors. The OFCCP, which oversees compliance with anti-discrimination laws for companies receiving federal funds, had required contractors to develop affirmative action programs and address workforce disparities based on gender, race, and other protected characteristics.Trump's order mandates the OFCCP immediately stop promoting affirmative action or workforce diversity measures. It also requires contractors to certify within 90 days that they are not implementing DEI programs deemed discriminatory under federal civil rights law. Additionally, the order redefines DEI initiatives as a potential form of illegal discrimination and encourages private companies to abandon such programs.The president's actions rescinded Executive Order 11246, a landmark 1965 order that established the OFCCP's affirmative action enforcement framework. Trump also repealed EO 13672, which protected federal contractor employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—protections that were later recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court under Title VII.This move is part of Trump's broader rollback of DEI policies, including prior executive orders eliminating diversity programs in federal agencies and restricting the legal definition of gender. Critics argue these changes undermine civil rights protections, while supporters claim they prevent reverse discrimination. The order creates significant uncertainty for federal contractors navigating compliance and DEI program implementation.Trump Guts Contractor Watchdog's Anti-Discrimination Power (1)In my column for Bloomberg this week, a discussion of religious exemptions for unemployment taxes.The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to address a pivotal question of tax policy and religious exemptions in a case involving Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB). The organization, affiliated with the Catholic Church, argues it should be exempt from paying unemployment taxes because of its religious connection, despite providing social services that are fundamentally secular, such as job placement for individuals with disabilities and daily living assistance. This case raises concerns about fairness in the nonprofit sector. Granting CCB a tax exemption would create an uneven playing field, where secular organizations performing identical services face higher tax burdens. Such an outcome risks distorting the marketplace of charitable organizations and undermines the principle of equal obligations for entities engaging in similar work. The implications extend far beyond this case. A ruling in favor of CCB could incentivize other religiously affiliated organizations to seek similar exemptions, potentially leading to widespread abuse of the tax system. Hospitals, schools, and social service agencies with religious ties might claim exemptions for services indistinguishable from those provided by secular counterparts, further eroding tax equity and integrity.The core of the issue lies in the distinction between genuinely religious activities and secular services provided under religious affiliation. Exempting organizations like CCB shifts the financial burden of public goods, such as unemployment insurance, onto other employers, including secular nonprofits, weakening their ability to serve the public effectively. Additionally, it blurs the boundary between secular and religious activities, making tax exemptions a potential tool for avoidance rather than a recognition of genuine religious exercise.This case also highlights the challenge of determining what qualifies for a religious exemption. While proponents argue that no organization should have to prove its religiosity, some oversight is necessary to prevent abuse and maintain fairness. Without such standards, exemptions could devolve into unchecked privileges for organizations with tenuous religious affiliations.Ultimately, the Court must balance respecting religious liberty with upholding public responsibilities. Preserving the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling against CCB would protect the integrity of the tax system, ensure fairness among nonprofits, and maintain a clear distinction between secular and religious activities while reinforcing the shared obligations of all public-serving entities.Supreme Court Must Ensure All Charities Get Fair Treatment This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a textIn this episode, Dr. Margot Jacquot speaks with Eileen Lysaught about the critical aspects of employment law relevant to mental health practitioners. They discuss the importance of having an employment attorney, the nuances of corporate structures, and the distinctions between employees and independent contractors. Eileen emphasizes the necessity of proper documentation, such as operating agreements and offer letters, to safeguard practices from legal issues. The conversation also covers the implications of non-solicitation and non-compete agreements, providing valuable insights for practice owners. The discussion highlights the evolving nature of employment regulations and the necessity for business owners to stay informed and proactive in their practices.Eileen Lysaught joined Laner Muchin in 2024 as Of Counsel, launching the Firm's Corporate and Commercial Services practice. With over 30 years of experience in business and corporate counseling, she assists her clients with concerns related to corporate agreements and business and employment law counseling.Eileen has extensive experience in the drafting, review and negotiation of corporate agreements for clients related to asset sales and purchases, manufacturing, distribution, vendors, licensing, non-disclosure, leases, operating and shareholder agreements. Eileen is adept in drafting handbooks, record retention plans, and corporate policies as well as in assisting in the implementation and training on those policies. She is also well-versed in offering employment law guidance to assist clients on matters such as ADA disability accommodation requests, human resource auditing, preparing offer letters, severance and employment agreements, as well as guiding clients on matters related to EEOC, ADEA, FMLA and Title VII.Eileen has managed complex human resources issues, training programs and investigations. Prior to joining the firm, she owned a general counsel and business and employment law advisory law firm, where she regularly prepared policies and procedures related to employee leave, sexual harassment, COVID, telehealth and employment handbooks. Eileen also served as Capital Partner for an intellectual property firm where she handled human resources requirements including performance management, onboarding, training and employee counseling in addition to managing all employee training programs such as cybersecurity, sexual harassment, bystander, document retention and more.HONORS, MEMBERSHIPS AND PUBLICATIONSMember, Society of Human Resource Management, 2006 – PresentMember, American Corporate Counsel Association, 1999 – PresentPanelist Speaker: Building It To Scale: Growing a SMB at Every Level – Business Minute Clinic (2018)Eileen Lysaught OF COUNSELO: 312.467.9800 | elysaught@lanermuchin.comDr. Jacquot and her team at The Juniper Center specialize in comprehensive mental health services for individuals, families, and organizations. Whether you're seeking therapy, coaching, or professional consultation, they are here to help.Contact Dr. Margo Jacquot and The Juniper Center:Email: margojacquot@thejunipercenter.comWebsite: www.junipercenter.comBe sure to like this episode, subscribe to our podcast, and share it with someone who could benefit from Dr. Jacquot's expertise!

This Day in Legal History: Cicero is BornOn January 3, 106 BC, Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of ancient Rome's most influential lawyers, orators, and statesmen, was born in Arpinum, a small town southeast of Rome. Cicero's life and work laid the foundations for modern legal and political thought, intertwining law, philosophy, and rhetoric. As a novus homo (the first in his family to achieve senatorial rank), Cicero rose through the Roman cursus honorum, eventually serving as consul in 63 BC. His tenure is most remembered for his decisive action in quelling the Catiline Conspiracy, a plot to overthrow the Republic.Cicero's legal career was marked by his exceptional eloquence and emphasis on justice. His speeches, such as those in defense of Sextus Roscius and against Verres, revealed his dedication to exposing corruption and advocating for fairness. Beyond his courtroom success, Cicero's philosophical treatises, including De Legibus (On the Laws), explored the nature of justice and the rule of law. His writings profoundly influenced thinkers of the Enlightenment and modern legal systems.In one of his letters, Cicero wrote to his friend – one of his most famous quotes:“What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even if it enables you to rule the world.”This succinct insight captures his belief in the universality of law as a moral and societal cornerstone.Cicero's life was not without turmoil. His opposition to Julius Caesar's dictatorship and later to Mark Antony cost him dearly. He was executed in 43 BC during the proscriptions. Cicero endures not only as a towering figure in law and politics but also as one of those ancient philosophers whose works people skim through, extract a handful of pithy quotes, and then relentlessly share at dinner parties or on social media. His knack for universal truths ensures his words still resonate, even as they occasionally overstay their welcome in the mouths of exhausting folks.President Biden plans to issue an executive order permanently banning new offshore oil and gas development in specific U.S. coastal waters. This move, based on the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, is intended to be difficult for future administrations to reverse and comes as Biden seeks to solidify his environmental legacy in the final weeks of his presidency. The protections aim to safeguard marine ecosystems, protect vulnerable coastal communities, and combat climate change, aligning with calls from environmental groups and congressional Democrats. While Biden's actions will not affect existing leases, the scope of the new protections is expected to include key areas like parts of the Pacific near California and the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida. Conservationists have praised the move as a necessary step to protect U.S. waters, while oil industry advocates argue it jeopardizes energy independence. Former President Donald Trump is likely to attempt reversing the order, though previous court rulings suggest such efforts may face significant legal hurdles. Offshore drilling remains a contentious issue, with opposition particularly strong in coastal regions reliant on tourism.Biden to Ban More Offshore Oil Drilling Before Trump Arrives (1)A group of Tesla shareholders is appealing a Delaware Chancery Court decision that voided Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package, which would have been the largest CEO compensation in U.S. history. Filed on December 31, the appeal also challenges Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick's $345 million award in attorneys' fees. McCormick had ruled that Tesla's board and Musk breached fiduciary duties to investors when approving the massive compensation plan. Despite shareholder approval votes in 2018 and 2024, the court found the deal unfairly tilted in Musk's favor. The plaintiffs, including ARK Investment Management LLC and individual investors, argue the appeal is necessary to restore shareholder voting rights and accountability.Attorneys for the shareholders assert that over 70% of investors supported the pay package in two separate votes, emphasizing the high level of approval. Legal representation for Musk, the board, and opposing shareholders have yet to respond to requests for comment. The appeal seeks to overturn a ruling that has intensified debates about executive compensation and corporate governance.Elon Musk Pay Deal Decision Appealed to Delaware High Court (1)The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 docket includes pivotal labor and employment cases addressing workplace discrimination, wage law exemptions, and employee benefits. Among the key issues is whether workers from "majority backgrounds," like white or heterosexual individuals, face higher hurdles in proving discrimination claims under Title VII. The Court's decision could reshape lawsuits challenging diversity policies. Another case will decide if retirees can sue former employers for disability bias, as exemplified by a Florida firefighter denied benefits. This issue has divided lower courts on whether retirees meet the Americans with Disabilities Act's requirements. Wage law exemptions are also under review, with the Court considering the evidentiary standard employers must meet to prove workers are exempt from overtime protections.Additionally, justices will address the standards for lawsuits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), involving allegations of excessive fees in retirement plans. These cases could have broad implications for labor law, corporate practices, and workplace equity, shaping the rights of employees and obligations of employers across the nation.Reverse bias, wage law exemptions top US Supreme Court's 2025 labor docket | ReutersThe U.S. Judicial Conference declined to refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice over allegations of ethics violations related to unreported gifts and luxury travel from a wealthy benefactor. The Conference cited amendments Thomas made to his financial disclosure reports, addressing issues raised by Democratic lawmakers. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson faced similar scrutiny over omissions in her reports but had also filed corrections, leading to the rejection of a referral request against her.Democratic lawmakers argued that Thomas's failure to disclose violated the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, but Thomas stated he was advised such disclosures were unnecessary for "personal hospitality." He committed to following updated guidelines in future filings. The Judicial Conference pointed to its recent efforts to clarify financial disclosure rules and noted Thomas's compliance with the new standards.The body also raised constitutional concerns about its authority to refer the matter to the DOJ, further noting the issue was moot since lawmakers had already requested an investigation directly from Attorney General Merrick Garland. Critics accused the judiciary of failing to hold Thomas accountable, while the judiciary emphasized the ongoing improvements to ethical oversight.US Supreme Court's Thomas will not be referred to Justice Department | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Strauss Jr. This week's closing theme celebrates Johann Strauss Jr., affectionately known as the "Waltz King," whose music epitomizes the charm and elegance of 19th-century Vienna. Born in 1825 into a musical dynasty, Strauss Jr. surpassed his father's legacy, becoming one of the most celebrated composers of light music. His works captured the spirit of Viennese high society, turning the waltz from a simple dance into an art form beloved across Europe.Strauss's compositions, such as The Blue Danube and Tales from the Vienna Woods, are synonymous with refinement and festivity, making him a perennial favorite for New Year's concerts worldwide. His waltzes are not merely music for dancing; they evoke vivid imagery, from shimmering ballrooms to idyllic countryside scenes. Known for his melodic genius and rhythmic vitality, Strauss's music remains a joyful celebration of life and beauty.This week, we highlight a medley of Strauss Jr.'s waltzes, a perfect encapsulation of his artistry and his gift for weaving together effervescent themes. It's a chance to immerse yourself in the glittering world of 19th-century Vienna and to reflect on the enduring magic of his music. Whether as a tribute to the New Year or simply an appreciation of Strauss's timeless melodies, this medley invites us to waltz into the weekend with grace and exuberance.Without further ado, a waltz medley by the Waltz King – Johann Strauss Jr.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Palmer RaidsOn January 2, 1920, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer orchestrated a sweeping crackdown on suspected radicals in what came to be known as the "Palmer Raids." Over 500 federal agents, joined by local law enforcement, conducted coordinated raids across 33 U.S. cities, arresting between 6,000 and 10,000 individuals. The targets were primarily immigrants accused of being communists, anarchists, or other political radicals. Many of those detained were held without warrants or evidence, and legal proceedings against them often lacked due process.These raids were the culmination of the first Red Scare, a period marked by paranoia about leftist ideologies following the Russian Revolution and a wave of domestic labor unrest. Palmer justified the operation as a necessary defense against a supposed revolutionary threat, publishing his infamous article, The Case Against the 'Reds,' which fanned public fears. However, the raids quickly drew criticism for their unconstitutional practices. Detainees were denied legal counsel, held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, and subjected to deportation without fair hearings.Prominent legal figures and organizations denounced the Palmer Raids, seeing them as a gross abuse of government power. Critics argued that Palmer's actions not only violated individual rights but also reflected an opportunistic attempt to bolster his political ambitions. The backlash led to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which emerged as a leading advocate against such government overreach.In hindsight, the Palmer Raids are a stark reminder of how fear and political expediency can undermine constitutional protections. They stand as a cautionary tale about the dangers of sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security, a pattern that has echoed through subsequent decades.Law schools are navigating significant changes as they head into 2025, with notable trends shaping the legal education landscape. Enrollment is surging, with applications for fall 2025 up 25% compared to last year. This follows a 6% increase in applicants and a 5% rise in first-year students in 2024. Interest in legal careers appears driven by the prominent role of law in current events, including the recent presidential election. The competition for spots, particularly at elite schools, is intensifying, with a sharp increase in applicants holding top LSAT scores.Diversity in law school classes remains a critical issue. While the overall diversity of the 2024 entering class held steady, Black and Hispanic enrollment at top-ranked "T-14" law schools dropped by 8% and 9%, respectively, following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action ban. Experts anticipate further impacts on diversity as fewer undergraduates of color enter the pipeline, with effects becoming clearer by 2028. For now, Black and Hispanic applicants are up significantly, reflecting continued interest in legal education.Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to influence law school curricula, though adoption varies widely. While only a small percentage of faculty actively teach AI-focused courses, some schools, like UC Berkeley and Arizona State, now offer AI-specific degrees or certificates. Legal writing courses and law clinics are increasingly integrating AI tools, responding to the legal profession's rapid adoption of generative AI technologies. Advocates argue that law schools must accelerate these efforts to meet employer and industry demands.Law school trends to watch in 2025 | ReutersA U.S. military appeals court has upheld the validity of plea deals for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and two accomplices. This decision follows an earlier ruling by a military judge stating that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's attempt to invalidate the agreements in August was untimely. Under these plea deals, the three men could plead guilty to their roles in the 9/11 attacks in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. The Pentagon has not commented on the ruling but previously indicated that Austin was surprised by the plea deals, which were made independently of his office. The 9/11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Mohammed remains one of the most notable detainees at Guantanamo Bay, a detention center established in 2002 to hold foreign militant suspects.The case has renewed criticism of Guantanamo Bay, with human rights advocates condemning the use of torture and calling for accountability. Separately, on the same day as the court ruling, the Pentagon announced the repatriation of Ridah Bin Saleh Al-Yazidi, one of Guantanamo's longest-held detainees, to Tunisia after being detained for over 20 years without charge. The facility currently houses 26 detainees, 14 of whom are eligible for transfer.US military appeals court says plea deals related to 9/11 attacks may proceed | ReutersCorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs faced mounting pressure in 2024, a trend likely to continue into 2025. Conservative activists, such as Robby Starbuck, successfully pushed major corporations like Walmart and Ford to modify or scale back their DEI initiatives. Starbuck's efforts have caught the attention of investors, with some threatening shareholder proposals in response to unwanted changes. Companies are also adjusting their language and communication around DEI to avoid political backlash, with organizations like Citigroup and Uber removing terms like "anti-racist" from corporate filings.The legal and political landscape is shifting as well. Trump's incoming administration, supported by a Republican-led Congress, plans to restrict corporate DEI through measures like prohibiting SEC workforce disclosures and barring government contracts for companies with DEI programs. Simultaneously, legal challenges from groups like America First Legal are targeting DEI policies as discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, with lawsuits filed against companies like IBM's Red Hat.Some corporations now list DEI as a potential risk factor in their filings, signaling concerns about legal or reputational fallout from their diversity efforts. Despite the scrutiny, many businesses quietly continue pursuing diversity goals, while some executives maintain that inclusivity is essential for long-term success. This balancing act reflects the growing complexity of navigating DEI in a polarized environment.Corporate DEI Programs Recoil and Rebrand as Pressure MountsIn my column this week, I contend that if the Department of Government Efficiency, which will not be a real executive agency, wants to make the IRS more efficient it should do so by ordering more audits of wealthy taxpayers. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's push for government efficiency could start by significantly improving federal revenue by addressing the $696 billion annual tax gap—the difference between taxes owed and collected. Research suggests that better auditing of high-income taxpayers, without requiring new legislation, could recover substantial unpaid taxes, aligning with the duo's mission of improving efficiency. Studies show that audits of wealthier individuals yield a high return on investment, deterring future tax evasion while reinforcing compliance.The IRS, weakened by years of budget cuts, requires more personnel to handle labor-intensive audits of complex high-income returns effectively. Targeted funding has already proven successful, as the Inflation Reduction Act enabled the IRS to recover over $1 billion from high-net-worth taxpayers. For every $1 spent auditing a taxpayer in the 90th percentile, the IRS recouped $12 in taxes owed – a truly staggering return on investment. However, the agency still struggles to match its 1995 staffing levels, highlighting a critical need for further investment.Closing the tax gap would not only generate significant revenue but also restore fairness by ensuring progressive tax rates function as intended. This effort is essential for creating an accurate picture of government resources and addressing fiscal responsibility. Whether Musk and Ramaswamy's commission will embrace this nuanced approach to tax administration remains to be seen, but don't hold your breath. A successful efficiency audit of the IRS hinges on informed decision-making and precision – something neither Musk nor Ramaswamy has evinced having in matters of politics.Musk, Ramaswamy Can Target Inefficiency by Closing the Tax Gap This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A Supreme Court case on medical care for transgender youth could have major ramifications – not only for children who have gender dysphoria and their families but also for how other statutes are reviewed under the Equal Protection Clause. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, breaking down key moments in the heated courtroom exchanges, examining the specific constitutional question in this case, and discussing the broader implications of the possible ruling. While the specific question in this case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, religion and religious arguments often loom large in cases that involve sexual orientation or gender identity.  SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The stakes of Skrmetti and the specific question presented For more on the atmosphere surrounding the case, read this piece from Mark Walsh for SCOTUSblog: Inside the Supreme Court arguments on transgender care Visit the website of the National Archives for more information on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.    Segment 2 (starting at 07:17): The heated oral arguments The U.S. Supreme Court heard U.S. v. Skrmetti on Dec. 4, 2024. The Supreme Court's website has links to listen to the oral arguments or read a transcript of the arguments. We played four clips from the courtroom: The opening argument of Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (from 00:00:10 in the oral argument) A question and statement from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 01:41:25 in the oral argument) The opening argument of Matthew Rice, Solicitor General for the state of Tennessee (from at 01:45:26 in the oral argument) An exchange between Matthew Rice and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 02:10:17 in the oral argument) Holly mentioned the Bostock v. Clayton County decision from 2020, which interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Holly and Amanda discussed the decision in episode 17 of season 1, titled “A landmark case for LGTBQ rights: What's next for religious liberty?”   Segment 3 (starting 39:57): Thank you to our listeners  Our most-listened to episode in 2024 was episode 21 of season 5, titled “But … is it Christian nationalism?”  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Today we're taking a closer look at a pivotal Supreme Court case that redefined workplace discrimination standards with distinguished attorneys Toni Jackson and Carolyn Wheeler. Together, they're breaking down the impact of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a recent ruling that sets a new precedent in Title VII employment discrimination law, clarifying what level of harm an employee must demonstrate to challenge a transfer. Toni and Carolyn, representing employer and employee perspectives respectively, offer nuanced insights into how this decision impacts employers, managers, and employees alike. They discuss what the "some harm" standard means in practice, the effect on performance management and employee transfers, and why this ruling could open doors for new types of workplace discrimination claims. From shifts in workplace dynamics to the potential impact on DEI initiatives, this episode explores what business leaders, HR professionals, and employees need to know to navigate these new legal waters. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!What if the future of workplace dynamics hinges on a single legal battle? This episode unpacks the groundbreaking case of former NFL player Teyo Johnson's lawsuit against EveryRealm and its CEO, Janine Yorio, centered around allegations of sexual harassment and a controversial "KYP game." As we navigate this complex legal landscape, we highlight the transformative Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), which empowers employees to sidestep mandatory arbitration and take their claims to court. This pivotal shift could redefine how companies address workplace harassment, ushering in a new era of accountability and employee empowerment.We explore the significance of understanding employment contracts and the invaluable role of meticulous documentation when facing harassment or discrimination. Johnson's experience serves as a crucial reminder of the enduring importance of respect, fairness, and accountability, even in the rapidly evolving metaverse work environment. By examining how laws like Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law are applied, this conversation sheds light on the evolving legal system that supports employees more than ever. Join us as we discuss how Johnson's case could reshape power dynamics in workplaces and encourage companies to take proactive steps against harassment.Click here to read the case decision in Teyo v. Everyrealm 22 civ 6669 (SDNY Oct. 6 2022).This episode involves the Johnson v. Everyrealm, Inc. case, where a former employee sued his employer and executives for race and pay discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. The employer sought to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement, but the employee argued that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) of 2021 prevented this. The court ruled that the employee's sexual harassment claims, plausibly alleging unwanted gender-based conduct in New York City, were sufficient to invoke the EFAA. Consequently, the court denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration, allowing the entire case to proceed. The court's decision hinged on interpreting the EFAA's scope to encompass the entire case, not just the sexual harassment claims. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Explore the landscape of modern hiring practices with Michael Cohen, employment law expert and partner at Duane Morris. Cohen emphasizes the crucial role civil rights laws like Title VII play in establishing ethical and compliant hiring processes, while also tackling the subtle challenges posed by implicit biases like affinity bias. He advocates for structured yet flexible interview frameworks—such as using uniform, job-focused questions—and encourages HR professionals to prioritize qualities that add cultural value, rather than seeking rigid cultural fit.Each week, All Things Work explores the latest workplace topics. Get the latest episode, along with additional resources and expert insights delivered straight to your inbox each week by signing up for the All Things Work newsletter: shrm.org/allthingsworkRate/review All Things Work on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This past April, the Department of Education published a 423-page final rule amending its implementing for Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs and activities, with certain, important exceptions. The new rule was consistent with an order issued by President Biden on his first day in office that the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County be applied across the entire federal government.Shortly after the new rule issued, at least ten separate lawsuits challenging it were filed by states, school districts, and parental rights groups in various federal jurisdictions. Thus far, the lawsuits have been uniformly successfully, with the rule now preliminarily enjoined in 26 states and numerous additional school districts. As oral argument is set to begin in the circuit courts on the government’s appeal, this webinar will review this litigation’s history, as well as preview its future, including what it might say about Bostock applicability outside of Title VII.Featuring: Donald A. Daugherty, Senior Counsel, Litigation, Defense of Freedom Institute

In recent years, the legal profession has increasingly prioritized diversity in law firm hiring and litigation leadership, driven by demands from corporate clients, alumni, and judges. Efforts to increase the representation of women and non-white lawyers have become so integral that they are now reflected in proposed formal rules, such as the FRCP 16.1, which would require judges to consider identity characteristics when selecting leadership teams for multidistrict litigation (MDL). This potential codification raises important questions about the legality and implications of identity-based preferences in the legal profession. How should client preferences for diversity be balanced with Title VII commitments, and what role should diversity of background play in law firm hiring and the selection of MDL legal teams? This panel will explore these issues, examining both the legal and policy arguments surrounding identity-based preferencing in legal employment.Featuring:Dean andré douglas pond cummings, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolProf. Darrell D. Jackson, Winston Howard Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of LawMr. Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy & The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage FoundationMs. Tobi Young, Senior Vice President Legal & Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Cognizant; Board of Directors, HalliburtonModerator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

In this episode, Kelsie interviews Bethany Schols, the Director of the Manglona Lab for Gender and Economic Equity at Penn State Law, about trailblazing women who ran for the highest office in the land. Their Witnesses to HerStory project is inspiring and encourages law students to interview women who grew up in a dynamic time in American history and experienced the reality of pre-Title IX education and pre-Title VII work. Get ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠FREE Learning Materials⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.remedialherstory.com/learn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Remedial Herstory Project⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.remedialherstory.com/giving⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ SHOP ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Remedial Herstory Gear⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.remedialherstory.com/store⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host: Kelsie Eckert and Brooke Sullivan Editor: Tyler Cardwell Producer: Haley Brook --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/remedialherstory/support

The Atlantic City Fire Department requires all personnel who respond to fires or other emergencies to follow the proper use of an air mask when exposed to hazardous air. To ensure a proper fit, employees are prohibited from growing facial hair that could interfere with the mask seal. Plaintiff, Pastor Alexander Smith requested a religious accommodation to wear a short beard, arguing that growing the beard was an exercise of his faith and that wearing the mask was not part of his technician role in the department. This request was denied, citing safety concerns, prompting Smith to pursue legal action, alleging First Amendment, Equal Protection, and Title VII violations. However, the District Court of New Jersey ruled in favor of the fire department. Together, the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic and First Liberty Institute are appealing his case to the Third Circuit, with oral argument on October 30. Join Kayla Toney, who is arguing the case, and Katie Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow at the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic, as they break down the argument.Featuring:Kayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Kathryn Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

Professor Harold Krent joined Robert to discuss major cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Garland v. VanDerStok, (ghost guns) (oral argument).E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, (burden of proof in FLSA litigation).Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., ("majority" plaintiffs burden of proof under Title VII).United States v. Skrmetti, (medical treatment for transgender children).Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

This Day in Legal History: West Law Reports PublishedOn October 21, 1876, the West Publishing Company, founded by John B. West, published its first legal reporter, The Syllabi. This marked the beginning of a transformation in how American legal professionals accessed and utilized case law. The Syllabi aimed to provide Minnesota lawyers with timely, accurate, and reliable legal information, distinguishing itself through its promise to be "prompt, interesting, full, and at all times thoroughly reliable." Over time, The Syllabi evolved into the Northwestern Reporter, which played a significant role in shaping the broader National Reporter System. West's innovation was groundbreaking because it standardized the reporting of judicial decisions across multiple jurisdictions, creating a centralized, accessible body of case law. The National Reporter System expanded to cover decisions from various courts in different regions, making it easier for lawyers to research case law beyond state boundaries. This system eventually became the foundation for modern legal research and was essential for the creation of tools like Westlaw, which revolutionized legal research with digital access in the 20th century. It is worth noting, the development of a centralized legal reporting system, while transformative, also raises important access to justice issues. West Publishing's dominance in legal reporting and the eventual emergence of paid research platforms like Westlaw created barriers for individuals and smaller firms with limited financial resources. The high cost of accessing comprehensive legal databases places those without the means at a significant disadvantage, potentially hindering their ability to conduct thorough legal research or build strong cases. This disparity underscores the ongoing challenge of ensuring equal access to legal resources, a critical factor in promoting fairness within the justice system.China-based drone manufacturer DJI has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Defense Department, challenging its inclusion on a list of companies allegedly linked to Beijing's military. DJI claims the designation is inaccurate and has caused substantial financial harm, including lost business deals and a tarnished reputation. The company, which controls over half of the U.S. commercial drone market, argues it is neither owned nor controlled by the Chinese military and seeks removal from the list. DJI alleges that the Pentagon did not engage with the company for over 16 months regarding the designation, leaving it no choice but to pursue legal action. The Pentagon has not commented on the suit. DJI is also facing increasing scrutiny in the U.S., with concerns raised about potential security risks from its drones. Earlier this week, U.S. Customs stopped some DJI imports under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, though DJI denies any involvement with forced labor. Meanwhile, the U.S. House has passed a bill to ban new DJI drones, pending Senate action.Drone maker DJI sues Pentagon over Chinese military listing | ReutersEli Lilly has filed lawsuits against three medical spas and online vendors—Pivotal Peptides, MangoRx, and Genesis Lifestyle Medicine—over selling unauthorized versions of its weight-loss drug, Zepbound, which contains tirzepatide. These lawsuits, filed in federal and state courts, accuse the companies of false advertising and promotion, including selling products without medical prescriptions and making unverified claims about the drug's safety and efficacy. Pivotal Peptides allegedly marketed tirzepatide for research but sold it directly to consumers, while MangoRx offered an unapproved oral version of the drug. Genesis was accused of selling compounded tirzepatide with vitamin B12, a combination that Lilly says is unsafe and untested. Lilly's lawsuits follow earlier legal actions against other companies for similar offenses. The drugmaker aims to protect consumers from potential health risks and seeks to stop the defendants from selling these products, as well as pursuing monetary damages.Lilly sues online vendors, medical spa over copycat weight-loss drugs | ReutersFour prominent labor lawyers from Baker McKenzie's New York employment practice—Paul Evans, Krissy Katzenstein, Blair Robinson, and Jeffrey Sturgeon—have moved to Paul Hastings, leaving Baker McKenzie short one-third of its employment lawyers. The team has represented Fox News in several high-profile employment disputes, including defending the network in cases involving former host Britt McHenry and a COVID-19 workplace exposure claim. The team has also worked with clients like CBS Broadcasting, Paramount Global, and Panda Express. Their move to Paul Hastings follows collaborations with the firm's employment lawyers, and they plan to continue growing Paul Hastings' client relationships. The transition strengthens Paul Hastings' East Coast employment practice, enhancing its capacity in complex employment matters, including Title VII representation, pay equity, and class actions. Paul Hastings' leadership sees this as a significant boost, especially ahead of regulatory shifts tied to the 2024 presidential election.Fox News Employment Defense Team Moves Over to Paul HastingsNew Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ Transit) is facing a patent infringement lawsuit from Railware Inc., which claims NJ Transit is using its railworker-safety technology without permission. NJ Transit is seeking to dismiss the case, asserting sovereign immunity as an "arm of the State of New Jersey." The issue is complicated by the fact that NJ Transit operates in both New Jersey and New York. While the Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey, has previously ruled that NJ Transit qualifies for immunity, the Second Circuit, which covers New York, uses a stricter test to determine state immunity. This case is significant because it could set a precedent for how sovereign immunity is applied across jurisdictions.Railware argues that NJ Transit's immunity claim is invalid, citing the agency's independent operation and non-state funding. The case also touches on broader legal debates about when state agencies can claim immunity in patent cases. NJ Transit is awaiting a key ruling from the New York Court of Appeals on whether it is immune from another lawsuit, which could influence this case. If conflicting rulings emerge from different courts, the matter may be escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution.NJ Transit Patent Immunity Claim Crosses Circuit-Court Divide This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Uncover the shocking truth about judicial clerkships in this eye-opening episode of the Lawyerist Podcast.  Today, Stephanie sits down with Aliza Shatzman, president and founder of the Legal Accountability Project, to discuss the crucial need for transparency and accountability within the judiciary.  Aliza shares her personal journey through a challenging clerkship experience, highlighting the lack of Title VII protections for law clerks and the systemic issues plaguing judicial clerkships.  Discover how the Legal Accountability Project's centralized clerkship database empowers clerks and enhances judicial transparency.     Links from the episode:   Visit LAP's Centralized Clerkships Database to submit a post-clerkship survey or register for Database access.  If today's podcast resonates with you and you haven't read The Small Firm Roadmap Revisited yet, get the first chapter right now for free!