POPULARITY
22 episodes with title vii
24 episodes with title vii
12 episodes with title vii
11 episodes with title vii
12 episodes with title vii
9 episodes with title vii
12 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
5 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
6 episodes with title vii
8 episodes with title vii
6 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
5 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
5 episodes with title vii
2 episodes with title vii
5 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
5 episodes with title vii
3 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
4 episodes with title vii
Welcome to RIMScast. Your host is Justin Smulison, Business Content Manager at RIMS, the Risk and Insurance Management Society. Justin interviews Chris Reilly about his insurance career and how you came to join and lead Link USA. They also cover RISKWORLD 2025 and the DE&I Studio, where Chris was on a panel. Chris talks about how he volunteered for the DE&I initiative at Amwins and how it has grown over the years. Chris does not believe the current anti-DE&I rhetoric will continue for long, in light of the existing Title VII and EEOC protecting employees and applicants against employment discrimination. Chris believes organizations know what is right, and that they will do better with a strong DE&I program in place, reducing reliance on EPLI coverage. The conversation concludes with information about Link USA's upcoming events. Listen to learn more about supporting Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion efforts in your organization. Key Takeaways: [:01] About RIMS and RIMScast. [:17] About this episode of RIMScast. Our topic is inclusivity in risk management and we will be joined by Chris Reilly, the National Co-Chair of Link USA, and Senior Vice President and National Practice Leader at Amwins Group Benefits. [:45] RIMS-CRMP Workshops! Register by July 1st for the next RIMS-CRMP Virtual Workshop, which will be co-led by Parima. That course will be held on July 8th and 9th. [1:02] The next RIMS-CRMP-FED virtual workshop will be led by Joseph Mayo on July 17th and 18th. Register by July 16th. Links to these courses can be found on the Certification Page of RIMS.org and through this episode's show notes. [1:20] RIMS Virtual Workshops! On June 26th. Pat Saporito will return to present the very popular new course, “Generative AI for Risk Management”. [1:32] A link to the full schedule of virtual workshops can be found on the RIMS.org/education and RIMS.org/education/online-learning pages. A link is also in this episode's notes. [1:43] Starting on July 16th, James Lam will host a six-module course, the RIMS-CRO Certificate in Advanced Enterprise Risk Management. This is a bi-weekly course that will run through Wednesday, September 24th. A link to last week's episode about it is in this episode's notes. [2:04] Registration closes on July 9th. A link is in this episode's notes. [2:09] Mark your calendars for November 17th and 18th for the RIMS ERM Conference 2025 in Seattle, Washington. The agenda is being built. Soon, we will distribute a Call for Nominations for the ERM Award of Distinction. I'll update this episode's show notes when that link is ready. [2:32] Think about your organization's ERM program or one that you know of, and how it has generated value. We will have more on that in the coming weeks. [2:40] On with the show! It's June 2025. It is Pride Month and RIMScast and RIMS are dedicated to fostering an environment where individuals from all backgrounds feel valued, respected, and empowered. We'll dive into the real meanings of words and initiatives; words like inclusivity. [3:01] Joining me today to delve into those terms is Chris Reilly, the National Co-Chair of Link USA. Link is the LGBTQ+ Insurance Network. Chris is also the Senior Vice President and National Practice Leader at Amwins's Group Benefits. [3:17] We will discuss the state of diversity, equity, and inclusion in insurance and risk management, how the pendulum has swung, and what risk professionals and employers need to know about a landscape that may or may not be changing as much as you think. [3:35] Interview! Chris Reilly, welcome to RIMScast! [3:42] It's Pride Month. For Chris, it's a great time to be celebrating oneself and celebrating with the community. He says there's no reason not to celebrate 12 months of the year. [4:14] Chris Reilly has had a 30-plus-year insurance career. His dad and grandfather had an agency. His father offered him a job right out of college. Chris thought he'd step up in a year or two, but he's still doing it 30-plus years later. It's a great career. He loves the industry. [4:47] The first part of Chris's years he spent in the Property and Casualty world as a commercial broker, most of those years with Aon. He jumped to the wholesale side when he joined Amwins in 2000. [5:05] Chris is on the employee benefits side, providing group benefit programs to companies through broker partners. [5:13] About five or six years ago, Amwins created internal DEI programs. Chris immediately volunteered to join the National Council at Amwins to participate in and help build those programs. He worked on a committee centered on making the workplace intentionally inclusive. [5:54] Chris served on that committee for two years. In the process, he came across Link, which was in the UK. Chris and a colleague convinced Link to bring it to the U.S., which they did in 2021. Four years later, Link has expanded into Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and Atlanta. [6:18] Link restructured this year with a national board for a national presence. Link kicked off Pride Month with a national virtual event. It had a great turnout. Chris is excited to continue to lead Link and help support the LGBTQ+ community and its allies in the insurance industry. [7:04] Chris notes that the insurance industry is still known to be a very conservative industry but from 30 years ago to today, there has been a big difference in inclusivity. There's constant evolution and change. We can always continue to do things better. [7:23] Chis says everybody is striving to do things better. That's why Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs became so important for all industries. Justin says that saying the words Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion instead of DEI provokes thought about their meaning and impact. [8:21] Chris agrees; when we say with intention, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion with intention, it's just better. Don't we all want to be included? Inclusion is an endearing word. Let's all come to the table. We need to be more intentional about the words. [9:19] Chris Reilly attended RISKWORLD 2025 for the first time and was at the DE&I Studio. There were speakers and panels. Chris represented Link USA to talk about who they are, what they do, and their mission for the LGBTQ+ community in the insurance industry. [10:21] Chris served on a panel where Link, the National African American Insurance Association, the Asian American Insurance Network, the Latin American Insurance Agency Networks, and the Association of Professional Insurance Women were represented. [10:43] The organizations work to make sure the insurance industry continues to be a diverse, inclusive, and equitable industry. They support each other and continue to press the message of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. They raise their voices for the common good of every employee. [11:17] Leaders from all of those organizations have been guests on RIMScast, with Chris Reilly and Link being the fifth organization represented. If more organizations are created, Justin will include them on the show. [11:37] Chris brings decades of experience in the trenches to his role on Link. [12:02] Justin says we're hearing a lot of anti-DEI rhetoric. Chris says a lot of it is noise. People are throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. In most C-Suites, smart leaders seek legal advice. If they haven't been doing anything illegal, there isn't much they need to change. [13:01] Companies that feed into the noise end up hurting their employees which can hurt their bottom line in the long term. [13:27] Companies need to cut through the noise and make sure that they know what's true and what's not true. They need to focus on continuing to do what they've been doing that has been working. [13:55] Chris thinks that a company scaling back its DEI initiative hurts its reputation. When they scale back, the employees feel it first. If employees don't feel good in the workplace about the culture that has been developed for employees, that impacts the work and the output. [14:34] Eventually, that can hit outside the walls of the insurance company. Insurance isn't a direct-to-consumer product so this industry doesn't get impacted in quite the same way as a retail store. [15:06] Plug Time! The very first RIMS Texas Regional Conference will be held from August 4th through the 6th in San Antonio at the Henry B. González Convention Center. Public Registration is open. [15:17] Hotel cut-off for the discounted rate is available through July 7th. The full Conference Agenda is now live, so you can start planning your experience. Don't miss the post-conference workshop, the RIMS-CRMP Exam Prep Course, available onsite. [15:33] This event is open to any RIMS Chapter member. If you are local to the area, you might consider becoming a RIMS member today, so that you can get all the benefits and begin networking with your new RIMS Texas peers. Links are in this episode's show notes. [15:48] You can also visit the Events Page of RIMS.org for more information. We look forward to seeing you in Texas! [15:56] Just a month later, we will be up North for the RIMS Canada Conference 2025, from September 14th through 17th in Calgary. Registration is open. Visit RIMSCanadaConference.CA and lock in favorable rates. We look forward to seeing you in Calgary! [16:15] On October 1st through the 3rd, the RIMS Western Regional Conference will be held in North San Jose at the Santa Clara Marriott. The agenda is live. It looks fantastic! Visit RIMSWesternRegional.com and register today. [16:31] Let's Return to Our Interview with Chris Reilly of Link! [16:50] There's no such thing as illegal DE&I! There is no legal framework about whether a company does DE&I or not. Companies decided that having a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive workforce was good for business. [17:30] There have been studies that show that when a company has a strong DE&I policy, it outperforms its competitors that don't by nearly 20%. Teams that are more diverse and inclusive outperform homogeneous groups by nearly 80%. [17:57] When you have a diversity of people; when you include people of different backgrounds in thought and education, you get more diverse thoughts and you can create better outcomes as a result. [18:15] This concept of illegal DE&I is thrown up there to create confusion and get people worrying about what they're doing. [18:51] Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) is what companies would buy if they have a sexual harassment suit, a discrimination suit, or a wrongful termination suit. Employers take this coverage to protect themselves from that. [19:25] Whether they have EPLI coverage or not, before the term “illegal DE&I,” nobody was concerned about it. They all felt that they had the proper policies and best practices in place to prevent employment practices claims. [19:43] If there were this rash of claims suddenly happening, maybe it's not “illegal DE&I” but you're not doing it right. Fix the problem so that it doesn't become an issue. [19:59] What companies are seeing is that their policies and best practices have been working, so there's not a problem. If companies start believing that they shouldn't have DE&I programs, that will embolden individuals to be bigots, racists, harassers, and bullies at work. [20:25] If that happens, you will get employment practices claims. [20:30] Justin feels that we are seeing uninclusive and bullying expressions more now on social media than when he was hired at RIMS eight years ago. [20:36] Chris thinks that the world has changed and the narrative has changed and people feel like they're emboldened to bring out those negative personality traits in themselves for some reason. [20:50] Chris recently talked to a company where the CEO addressed the employees, to tell them that bigotry, harassment, and hatred have no place, and will have no place in the company. [21:16] He told them the company was built with a culture that respects everybody, that is about fairness and integrity, working together, and creating inclusive and collaborative teams, to create the best outcomes they can for the company and its consumers. [21:32] He said they are going to keep doing what they're doing because everything's going just fine. He said if we start trying to tinker with the DE&I programs, that will inevitably create problems and deteriorate the great work that you have been doing. [21:53] What's the ROI on DE&I? It's hard to quantify. When your employees are happy, they're doing good work, they're being productive, and the company is successful, that comes in part from the investment of time, energy, and money put into Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion programs. [22:08] You can try to tie ROI to some of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs when you talk about EPLI, Directors & Officers, and E&O insurance. If you don't have good practices, what you will have is employment practices liability claims around discrimination and harassment. [23:01] HR will have to deal with the HR issues of employees, potentially defending a lawsuit. If they don't have these coverages in place, those defence costs can get expensive. You might have to settle a suit, which can cost more money. It's a ripple effect. [23:27] With more claims, the premiums of these policies will go up. So, if you're not following best practices and have to start paying out claims and higher premiums to defend yourself against these claims, those are financial factors to consider in the ROI of doing the right thing. [23:51] Plug Time! Let me tell you about the Spencer Educational Foundation. Spencer's goal to help build a talent pipeline of risk management and insurance professionals is achieved, in part, by its collaboration with risk management and insurance educators across the U.S. and Canada. [24:31] Since 2010, Spencer has awarded over $3.3 million in General Grants to support over 130 student-centred experiential learning initiatives at universities and RMI non-profits. Spencer's 2026 application process is now open through July 30th, 2025. [24:31] General Grant awardees are typically notified at the end of October. [24:35] Spencer's Risk Manager on Campus Program offers grants of up to $5,000 to universities and colleges in the United States and Canada to host a practicing risk manager on their campus for a one-to-three-day residency. [24:49] The Risk Manager on Campus program has been praised by both universities and risk managers as a rewarding educational experience for students and a chance to give back to the profession. The application deadline for 2026 is June 30th, 2025. Check the link in the notes. [25:08] Visit SpencerEd.org for more information. [25:12] Let's Return to the Conclusion of My Interview with Chris Reilly! [25:34] The pendulum has swung one way. Chris thinks that it will swing back as smarter and calmer minds prevail, in the end. Organization leaders know what's right and wrong. Once the noise calms down, people will realize that we already have things in place to protect everybody. [26:14] We already have Title VII and the EEOC in place. I have told people that with all that's being said, no laws have changed. Title VII is in place and the EEOC is still there to enforce it. If there were crazy problems with this, Title VII and the EEOC would already be addressing it. [26:44] Chris believes the pendulum will swing back to the center sooner rather than later. Executive orders and attempting to change laws are not going to sit well. There are already protections in place to prohibit employment discrimination. [27:13] Chris is the National Chair of Link USA. A couple of days after this episode, there will be the New York City Link-Up Networking Happy Hour, Pride Edition. That's going to be in Manhattan on the Avenue. [27:33] On June 26th, in Los Angeles, there will be a Pride Movie Night and Networking Mixer at the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema. Chris says these events are always fun. Link tries to create personal connections between the LGBTQ+ Community and its allies. [28:04] We're all doing the same thing, feeling the same pressures, working in the insurance industry, and wanting connection. Some people work at companies that may not have anybody else like them in their firm. They're looking for connections within the LGBTQ+ community. [28:28] Link is heavily supported by its allies. They couldn't fight the fight without the allies. The events are about bringing people together in a fun way and ultimately, networking in the industry. People connect and build business relationships and develop businesses, as well. [28:55] We've got a link to Link in this episode's notes. [28:58] Chris, it's been a real pleasure to speak with you. I'm glad we're having this dialogue. I hope to see you at RISKWORLD 2026 and the Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Studio. [29:21] Special thanks again to Chris Reilly of Link, the LGBTQ+ Insurance Network. Links to the events that we mentioned and to Link's website are in this episode's show notes. [29:34] RIMS has a Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Council and page. You can visit it on RIMS.org, through the Community section, and the link in this episode's show notes. [29:49] Plug Time! You can sponsor a RIMScast episode for this, our weekly show, or a dedicated episode. Links to sponsored episodes are in the show notes. [30:17] RIMScast has a global audience of risk and insurance professionals, legal professionals, students, business leaders, C-Suite executives, and more. Let's collaborate and help you reach them! Contact pd@rims.org for more information. [30:35] Become a RIMS member and get access to the tools, thought leadership, and network you need to succeed. Visit RIMS.org/membership or email membershipdept@RIMS.org for more information. [30:53] Risk Knowledge is the RIMS searchable content library that provides relevant information for today's risk professionals. Materials include RIMS executive reports, survey findings, contributed articles, industry research, benchmarking data, and more. [31:09] For the best reporting on the profession of risk management, read Risk Management Magazine at RMMagazine.com. It is written and published by the best minds in risk management. [31:23] Justin Smulison is the Business Content Manager at RIMS. You can email Justin at Content@RIMS.org. [31:31] Thank you all for your continued support and engagement on social media channels! We appreciate all your kind words. Listen every week! Stay safe! Links: RIMS Diversity Equity Inclusion Council Link (LGBTQ+ Insurance Network) Link USA Events in New York City and Los Angeles RIMS Texas Regional 2025 — August 3‒5 | Registration now open. RIMS Canada 2025 — Sept. 14‒17 | Registration now open! RIMS Western Regional — Oct 1‒3 | Bay Area, California | Registration now open! RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMS Risk Management magazine RIMS Now The Strategic and Enterprise Risk Center Spencer Education Foundation — General Grants 2026 — Application Deadline July 30, 2025 Spencer's Risk Manager on Campus — Application Deadline June 30, 2025 RIMS ERM Conference 2025 — Nov 17‒18 in Seattle! [Save the Date!] RIMS-CRO Certificate in Advanced Enterprise Risk Management — Featuring Instructor James Lam! Register by July 7. | Bi-weekly course begins July 16. RIMS Webinars: RIMS.org/Webinars Upcoming RIMS-CRMP Prep Virtual Workshops: RIMS-CRMP Exam Prep Virtual Workshop — July 8‒9, 2025 | Presented by RIMS and PARIMA RIMS-CRMP-FED Exam Prep Virtual Workshop — July 17‒18 Full RIMS-CRMP Prep Course Schedule “Generative AI for Risk Management” | June 26 | Instructor: Pat Saporito See the full calendar of RIMS Virtual Workshops RIMS-CRMP Prep Workshops Related RIMScast Episodes: “James Lam on ERM, Strategy, and the Modern CRO” “Live from RISKWORLD 2025” “Thoughts and IDEAs on Inclusivity with Michael Bach” “The Strengths of DE&I Initiatives with Lilian Vanvieldt-Gray of Alliant Insurance Services” “LAAIA Atlanta Chapter President Jose Aponte” “Equality and the Risk Profession with Elisa Stampf” Sponsored RIMScast Episodes: “The New Reality of Risk Engineering: From Code Compliance to Resilience” | Sponsored by AXA XL (New!) “Change Management: AI's Role in Loss Control and Property Insurance” | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company “Demystifying Multinational Fronting Insurance Programs” | Sponsored by Zurich “Understanding Third-Party Litigation Funding” | Sponsored by Zurich “What Risk Managers Can Learn From School Shootings” | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog “Simplifying the Challenges of OSHA Recordkeeping” | Sponsored by Medcor “Risk Management in a Changing World: A Deep Dive into AXA's 2024 Future Risks Report” | Sponsored by AXA XL “How Insurance Builds Resilience Against An Active Assailant Attack” | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog “Third-Party and Cyber Risk Management Tips” | Sponsored by Alliant “RMIS Innovation with Archer” | Sponsored by Archer “Navigating Commercial Property Risks with Captives” | Sponsored by Zurich “Breaking Down Silos: AXA XL's New Approach to Casualty Insurance” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Weathering Today's Property Claims Management Challenges” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Storm Prep 2024: The Growing Impact of Convective Storms and Hail” | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company “Partnering Against Cyberrisk” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Harnessing the Power of Data and Analytics for Effective Risk Management” | Sponsored by Marsh “Accident Prevention — The Winning Formula For Construction and Insurance” | Sponsored by Otoos “Platinum Protection: Underwriting and Risk Engineering's Role in Protecting Commercial Properties” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Elevating RMIS — The Archer Way” | Sponsored by Archer RIMS Publications, Content, and Links: RIMS Membership — Whether you are a new member or need to transition, be a part of the global risk management community! RIMS Virtual Workshops On-Demand Webinars RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMS Strategic & Enterprise Risk Center RIMS-CRMP Stories — Featuring RIMS President Kristen Peed! RIMS Events, Education, and Services: RIMS Risk Maturity Model® Sponsor RIMScast: Contact sales@rims.org or pd@rims.org for more information. Want to Learn More? Keep up with the podcast on RIMS.org, and listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Have a question or suggestion? Email: Content@rims.org. Join the Conversation! Follow @RIMSorg on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. About our guest: Chris Reilly, National Co-Chair of Link USA | LGBTQ+ Insurance Network, Senior Vice President and National Practice Leader at Amwins Group Benefits Production and engineering provided by Podfly.
The Young Generation (Cori) reaches out to the Old Generation (Nina) and exhibits patience while pretending to listen to geezer tales of things that go wrong with body parts and the SSDI Blue Book. Then we get into the hip, happenin', swingin' NOW with the latest news on gay martyrs, fake martyrs, and trans martyrs. Nina consents to Cori's exposition on immigration, and somehow gets stuck comparing illiberal policy to her Junior High school cafeteria. Plus: tribal identities, Cori's synagogue, lenses, spicy food, organ recitals, Title VII, cooling sheets, and a surprisingly out-of-character bathroom joke.Cori and Nina may not be equals, but they are co-hosts, which is about as close as we can get in this life.LinksSSDI Blue Book: https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/AdultListings.htmhttps://blog.ninapaley.com/2025/05/31/illustrating-the-ssdi-blue-book/Jonathan Joss: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jonathan-joss-killing-police-records-neighbor-dispute-rcna210670Matthew Shepard: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/the-truth-behind-americas-most-famous-gay-hate-murder-matthew-shepard Get full access to Heterodorx Podcast at heterodorx.substack.com/subscribe
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 Circuit 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.On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding that “the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.” Join us for an expert analysis of this decision and its implications.Featuring:Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.The landmark Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services fundamentally reshapes our understanding of workplace discrimination protections. Through a rare unanimous ruling, the Court has powerfully affirmed that every individual—regardless of majority or minority status—stands equal under employment law.What makes this case particularly significant is how it dismantles misconceptions about "reverse discrimination." As we explore in this episode, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act never distinguished between majority and minority groups—it protects individuals. When Marlene Ames, a heterosexual woman, found herself denied promotion and subsequently demoted while LGBTQ+ candidates were favored, she challenged this discrimination all the way to the Supreme Court. Despite losing at lower court levels, her persistence ultimately vindicated a principle too often misunderstood: discrimination against anyone based on protected characteristics is illegal, full stop.The Court's decision, delivered through Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected the additional burden that some courts had placed on majority plaintiffs to prove "background circumstances" suggesting their employer discriminates against majority groups. This ruling has profound implications for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in American workplaces. While the Court didn't explicitly address DEI, the message is clear—policies that favor certain groups at the expense of others cross legal boundaries. For employees who believe they face discrimination despite belonging to a majority group, this decision provides significant legal backing.Have you experienced workplace discrimination but hesitated to speak up because you belong to a majority group? Understanding your rights is the first step toward workplace equality. Subscribe to the Employee Survival Guide for more insights that empower you to navigate complex workplace dynamics and protect your rights regardless of your background. 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.
Eric Meyer, founding partner of Pierson Ferdinand, joins Gina Rubel to discuss the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and its implications for all employers, including law firms. They discuss how the ruling affects Title VII compliance, the future of DEI efforts, and the importance of consistent, merit-based employment practices. Eric offers practical guidance for minimizing legal risk while reinforcing fairness and accountability in hiring, promotion, and internal investigations.
Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt & Mini Tote at politicon.com/merch Joyce Vance hosts #SistersInLaw to break down the upcoming cases on the Supreme Court docket, focusing on their review of cases under Title VII, the pernicious effects of taking too long to issue rulings on critical issues in the Trump era, and the concept of DIG (dismissed as improvidently granted). Then, the #Sisters explain how EMTLA is protecting women from the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, the ongoing challenges faced by healthcare providers, and if the executive branch has gone too far. They also challenge the legality of Trump's resurrected travel bans and highlight the importance of diversity in the success of our country. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky #SistersInLaw Spin-off Shows Are Here! Check out Jill's New Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's New Politicon Podcast: Justice By Design Register for Barb's 6/3 book talk in New York (with Loretta Lynch!) Get Barb's book, Attack From Within, coming out in paperback! Joyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available for pre-order! Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon. Get More From The #Sisters: From Joyce- Five Questions with Dara Kass, Emergency Room Physician and Women's Rights Activist Please Support This Week's Sponsors HexClad: Find your forever cookware @hexclad and get 10% off at hexclad.com/SISTERS! #hexcladpartner OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code SISTERS at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Laundry Sauce: Make laundry day the best day of the week! Get 20% off your entire order @LaundrySauce with code SISTERS at https://laundrysauce.com/SISTERS #laundrysaucepod HoneyLove: Save 20% Off HoneyLove by going to honeylove.com/SISTERS! #honeylovepod Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable” Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America
In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a plaintiff who belongs to a majority group need to demonstrate “background circumstances suggesting that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?The case was decided on June 5, 2025.The Supreme Court held that In a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation without imposing a heightened evidentiary standard for plaintiffs from majority groups. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision, which had required Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, to demonstrate "background circumstances" suggesting that her employer discriminated against the majority group. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Court, emphasized that Title VII's protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of group membership. The ruling allows Ames's discrimination claim to proceed in lower courts.This decision clarifies that plaintiffs alleging discrimination under Title VII need not meet additional burdens based on their majority status, thereby potentially broadening the scope for future employment discrimination claims.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.
Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four Thursday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Trump's Call with XI Trump’s recent call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Buck breaks down the administration’s efforts to renegotiate trade terms, particularly around rare earth materials, and praises Trump’s strategic clarity and leadership—drawing a sharp contrast with the previous Biden administration’s perceived indecisiveness and lack of coherent China policy. Buck also explores the evolving dynamic between President Trump and Elon Musk, noting some recent friction but expressing hope that their shared goals will keep the relationship productive. He uses this moment to underscore the importance of unity among influential figures who support American innovation and economic strength. CBP Senior Advisor, Ron Vitiello Immigration and border security. Ron Vitiello, Senior Advisor to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Vitello details the dramatic improvements at the southern border under Trump’s leadership, including a 90%+ drop in illegal crossings, increased prosecutions, and the deployment of 10,000 troops. He credits this success to strong leadership, clear policy enforcement, and international cooperation with Mexico and Canada. Vitiello also updates listeners on the status of the border wall, revealing that over 100 miles have been constructed using remaining funds from Trump’s first term, with plans for 700 additional miles underway. He emphasizes how the administration’s use of tariffs has pressured neighboring countries to step up their border enforcement, contributing to a significant reduction in fentanyl trafficking and cartel activity. Buck passionately defends ICE and Border Patrol agents, pushing back against political attacks and media narratives that undermine their work. He highlights the dangerous conditions these agents face and the critical role they play in protecting American communities from cartel violence and illegal immigration. Identity Politics Obsession Buck critiques a controversial ruling by a Biden-appointed federal judge in Colorado, who blocked the deportation of the family of a convicted terrorist. He warns of the dangers of judicial overreach and the erosion of executive authority, especially when lower court judges act as de facto policymakers. A major segment of the hour focuses on the unraveling credibility of former Biden administration allies. Buck calls out CNN’s Jake Tapper for attempting to rebrand himself after years of defending the Biden presidency, accusing him of opportunism. He also dissects the political pivot of former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who recently announced her departure from the Democratic Party. Buck argues that her appointment was driven by DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) priorities rather than qualifications, and he critiques the media’s double standards in covering her tenure. A landmark Supreme Court decision that reaffirms the illegality of reverse discrimination. Buck explains how the unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, confirms that all Americans—regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation—are equally protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He frames this as a major blow to DEI policies and a win for merit-based hiring. Bad Blood between Musk and Trump? Buck addresses a growing rift between President Trump and Elon Musk. He analyzes their recent public spat over government spending and policy disagreements, while emphasizing Trump’s history of reconciliation and strategic alliances. Buck suggests that despite current tensions, the relationship may recover, as both figures remain central to the MAGA movement. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It is hard to believe that we're already zooming into summer! It's been a wild few months, and this is an informational episode to recap some of what has happened. We start by giving you a peek behind the scenes at ICS, from training planned to a newly launched LinkedIn newsletter. Next, we touch on the May 22nd injunction, the events of May 23rd, and what the newly introduced Civil Rights Fraud Initiative stands to do. Our discussion also explores multiple new executive orders that have emerged recently and delves into Harvard's fight and defense strategy with the administration and the timeline of events. Lastly, we unpack what you can gain from the ICS summer prep worksheets. Thanks for listening! Key Points From This Episode: In-person and live virtual trainings ICS is offering for K-12 and Higher Ed. The newly launched Tuesday Takeaways newsletter on LinkedIn. Unpacking the implications of the preliminary injunction of May 22nd on Title VII. The Supreme Court's recent blocking of its first religious charter school. Introduction of a new unit: The Civil Rights Fraud Initiative. The new executive order banning disparate impact analysis in civil rights enforcement. Another new executive order focused on strengthening and investing in HBCUs. A timeline of what Harvard sees as the administration's escalating retaliation campaign. What is covered in the 2025 summer prep worksheets from ICS. Links Mentioned in Today's Episode: K-12 Worksheet Higher Ed WorksheetICS Lawyer BlogICS on LinkedInTuesday Takeaways LinkedIn NewsletterHigher Ed Trainings and Webinars'Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy'Title IX, Mental Health and School Safety Symposium ICS Lawyer Higher Ed Community Access K-12 Community Access Higher Ed Virtual Certified IX Training K-12 Virtual Certified Title IX Training ICS Blog Courtney Bullard on LinkedIn Courtney Bullard on X Learn about Becoming a Community Partner
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson previews the Supreme Court's most anticipated pending cases as the term nears its end. She highlights upcoming decisions on nationwide injunctions, Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, evolving standards in discrimination lawsuits, and major cases involving religious exemptions and parental rights in education. Jessica offers her predictions and insight on how these rulings could shape the law and impact daily life, setting the stage for a dramatic finale to the Supreme Court term.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Nationwide Injunctions – Trump v. Washington/New Jersey/California: This case tackles whether federal district courts can issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies, as opposed to limiting decisions to just the plaintiffs in the case. The backdrop is Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which attempts to limit who qualifies as a citizen by birth.Transgender Rights and Equal Protection – Skrmetti: The Court is considering whether Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming treatments for minors violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The predicted outcome is that the Court may allow such state restrictions, but notes there could be future challenges regarding parental rights under a different part of the Fourteenth Amendment.Religious Objections in Public Schools – Parental Opt-Outs for LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum: A Maryland case considers if public schools must offer opt-outs for parents whose religious beliefs conflict with LGBTQ-inclusive materials and lessons. The prediction: the Court may require such opt-outs under the Free Exercise Clause, but will need to write the opinion carefully to avoid overly broad exemptions.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica
In today's episode, Jeff Harty and Fran Haas explore the complexities of noncompete agreements, noting their effectiveness in protecting IP but also their challenges. Fran highlights varying state laws on noncompetes and provides valuable insights related to structuring noncompete agreements with remote and mobile workforces.In this episode, Jeff Harty and Fran Haas discuss: Noncompete agreements to protect IP and what makes them enforceable.How non-solicitation agreements and confidentiality agreements differ from noncompete agreements.Political pressure against noncompete agreements.State-specific limitations to be aware of.Key Takeaways: What the noncompete agreement says, the law that applies, and where your employee is living or working are all variables that can greatly impact the enforceability of a noncompete.Noncompetes are politically unpopular because they are viewed as giving an employer the ability to stop someone from earning a living.Be strategic about your chosen state. Be aware of the laws in the state where your business is organized. “Make sure your noncompete is enforceable in your chosen state. That's a first step. It seems obvious, but with the law changing as much as it is, you should be checking in at least once a year with your employment counsel to make sure your noncompetes are still enforceable.” — Fran Haas About Fran Haas: In her labor and employment practice, Fran Haas encounters a fair share of difficult cases, but in each matter, she's determined to reach a conclusion that satisfies her clients. “I'm able to handle all the issues my clients might encounter,” she says. “It's about being resourceful.”Fran litigates for employers in cases related to harassment, discrimination, retaliation, Family and Medical Leave Act, equal pay, and wrongful termination. She negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of management, as well as other labor disputes. She also takes on higher education cases in matters involving Title IX, Title VII, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. On a daily basis, Fran takes satisfaction in seeing the legal system at work. As a former law clerk for a federal judge, Fran saw firsthand how the court provides an important service to citizens, something that drives her in her practice. “It's very rewarding to me when the system works the way it should and we get the outcome for the client,” she says. “It's not just winning but being part of a process that works.”Connect with Fran Haas:Website: nyemaster.com/team/frances-m-haasEmail: fhaas@nyemaster.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/frances-haas-47a42819Connect with Jeff Harty:Website: nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-hartyEmail: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643
In this week's LGBTQ headlines: • A federal judge has ruled Title VII does not protect LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. His verdict directly contradicts a 2020 ruling by the Supreme Court • A petition to ban the harmful practice of “conversion therapy” has garnered over 1 million signatures in the European Union, requiring the European Commission to provide a detailed response. • Legendary adult entertainment star and Billboard charting recording artist Colton Ford has unexpectedly died at the age of 62 All that and more in this episode of The Randy Report.
In this week's LGBTQ headlines: • A federal judge has ruled Title VII does not protect LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. His verdict directly contradicts a 2020 ruling by the Supreme Court • A petition to ban the harmful practice of “conversion therapy” has garnered over 1 million signatures in the European Union, requiring the European Commission to provide a detailed response. • Legendary adult entertainment star and Billboard charting recording artist Colton Ford has unexpectedly died at the age of 62 All that and more in this episode of The Randy Report.
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.
Welcome to a special edition of We get work®, recorded live from Workplace Horizons 2025 in New York City, Jackson Lewis's annual Labor and Employment Law Conference. Over 500 representatives from 260 companies gathered together to share valuable insights and best practices on workplace law issues impacting their business today. Here's your personal invitation to get the insights from the conference, delivered directly to you.
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.
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.
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
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 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!
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.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
