Podcasts about title vii

This episode of TRP Podcast is dedicated to Uncle Tom Luckey of Humbolt, Tennessee. Today is his funeral at Antioch Baptist Church in Humbolt, not far from the farm on which he grew up and worked his entire life. The time stamps for Uncle Tom comments are as follows: 1) at the beginning, 2) minute 42-43, 3) the one hour mark, 4) and at the very ending few minutes. The rest is about why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 5 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- a real hoot. Part 5: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral III.A , and stop at his III.B. We'll cover his III.B next time. Part 5. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Send us a textJoin Chuck and John this week as they go back to an episode from May 27, 2021 about the case that redefined what sexual harassment can look like in the workplace. ---In this episode, our hosts John and Chuck tell the behind the scenes story of Mechelle Vinson....a 19 year old Bank Teller and how she was coerced into having a sexual relationship with her boss in order to save her job.In May of 1975, Mr. Sidney Taylor, Branch Manager at a local bank takes his employee, Bank Teller Mechelle Vinson, out to dinner at a Chinese Restaurant after work. Years later, Michelle  recollected the story of the Chinese restaurant dinner with the Washington Post…in her own words…she said… ‘I don't want to go to bed with you,' And he says, ‘Just like I hired you, I'll fire you. Just like I made you, I'll break you, and if you don't do what I say then I'll have you killed.' … And that's how it started.”As we continue our HR Stories of Court Cases and Laws that made HR today we look at the very first case that eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1986, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. It was the first of its kind to redefine sexual harassment in the workplace. It established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful and when an employer would be liable.The court, ruled unanimously (9–0) that sexual harassment that results in a hostile work environment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans sex discrimination by employers. The Court also established criteria for judging such claims. Visit TeamAtHRStories.com to see all of our workshops and offerings to help you feel confident in your HR decisions. Support the showOur new book...The Ultimate Guide to HR: Checklists Edition is now AVAILABLE! Go to UltimateGuidetoHR.com to Get HR Right: and Avoid Costly Mistakes. Certified and approved for 3 SHRM Recertification Credits.Join the HR Team of One Community on Facebook or visit TeamAtHRstories.com and sign up for emails so you can be the first to know about new things we have coming up.You can also follow us on Instagram and TikTok at @HRstoriesPodcast Don't forget to rate our podcast, it really helps other people find it!Do you have a situation or topic you'd like the team to discuss? Are you interested in having Chuck or John talk to your team or Emcee your event? You can reach the Team at Email@TeamAtHRStories.com for suggestions and inquiries.The viewpoints expressed by the characters in the stories are not necessarily that of The Team at HR Stories. The stories are shared to present various, real-world scenarios and share how they were handled by policy and, at times, law. Chuck and John are not lawyers and always recommend working with an employment lawyer to address concerns.

Mothers Against Campus Antisemitism: Fighting Hate on College Campuses | Grassroots Jewish ActivismDescription:In the wake of October 7th, Mothers Against Campus Antisemitism (MACA) has become one of the largest Jewish activist movements in the United States—mobilizing tens of thousands of parents to protect Jewish students and faculty from antisemitism on college campuses.In this episode, we speak with Miriam and Jerry, two of the founders of MACA, about:The rapid growth of the organizationThe disturbing rise in antisemitism in higher educationThe tension between grassroots activism and legacy Jewish organizations like Hillel, ADL, and FederationOngoing lawsuits against major universities (including UCLA's $6M settlement)The dismantling and politicization of Jewish Studies and Holocaust programsThe broader cultural and political fight to safeguard Jewish life on campusThis conversation dives deep into Title VI legal protections, faculty pushback, indoctrination in academia, and how grassroots Jewish activism is changing the landscape.If you care about Jewish student safety, campus free speech, and the future of Jewish life in America, this is a must-watch.

New guidance from Attorney General Bondi urges federal funding recipients to reassess DEI programs to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. This memo highlights actions deemed “unlawful DEI,” including race-based scholarships, preferential hiring, and misapplied “neutral” criteria. What This Means for Employers: Federal consequences: Noncompliance risks include funding revocation or False Claims Act liability. Beyond federal funding: Private employers should also review DEI policies for legal risks. Focused best practices: Ensure inclusive environments, prioritize skills and qualifications, and eliminate demographic-driven criteria. Epstein Becker Green's Lauri Rasnick unpacks these developments in this week's Employment Law This Week®. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw400 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. 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.

By Adam Turteltaub What you don't know can hurt you. And what you do know can hurt you.  Such is the dilemma of background screening. Companies want to know who they are hiring, but, explains Al Firato, CEO & Founder of HireSafe, some information is off limits. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title VII prohibit examinations of race, religion, ethnicity and more. In addition, federal and state regulations set limits on what background check firms can look at. That's not always a bad thing, Al points out. A conviction for a criminal offense from decades earlier should not be cause for immediate disqualification, especially if the person has since made amends. In addition, the conviction may not be relevant for the job at hand: a DUI for a prospective delivery driver is a lot different than one for someone who will be working at a desk all day. The EEOC has also made it clear that people are, in most cases, entitled to a second chance. With that said, background checks can be very useful for revealing exaggerated academic and work histories. Many prospective employees take advantage of the fact that, with so many mergers, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to verify previous employment. Listen in to learn more about the do's and don'ts of background screening. Listen now The Compliance Perspectives Podcast is sponsored by Athennian, a leading provider of entity management and governance software. Get started at www.athennian.com.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sincerely held religious beliefs, but are you training your management teams to understand this? In this episode, Pandy explains how one company violated Title VII and what you should do so not to fall into same mistakes.

Send us a textThis week in our Summer School series, we're revisiting a landmark case that forever reshaped HR law and workplace culture: Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. Originally aired in May 2021, this powerful episode unpacks the story of Mechelle Vinson, whose harrowing experiences led the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize hostile work environment sexual harassment as a form of discrimination under Title VII.Join us as we walk through how a young bank teller's lawsuit not only challenged her employer but set a precedent that still guides HR investigations, policies, and training today. Whether you're an HR professional, a business owner, or just passionate about employment law, this is a must-listen episode that shows why understanding the past is essential to shaping a safer workplace for all. Visit TeamAtHRStories.com to see all of our workshops and offerings to help you feel confident in your HR decisions. Support the showOur new book...The Ultimate Guide to HR: Checklists Edition is now AVAILABLE! Go to UltimateGuidetoHR.com to Get HR Right: and Avoid Costly Mistakes. Certified and approved for 3 SHRM Recertification Credits.Join the HR Team of One Community on Facebook or visit TeamAtHRstories.com and sign up for emails so you can be the first to know about new things we have coming up.You can also follow us on Instagram and TikTok at @HRstoriesPodcast Don't forget to rate our podcast, it really helps other people find it!Do you have a situation or topic you'd like the team to discuss? Are you interested in having Chuck or John talk to your team or Emcee your event? You can reach the Team at Email@TeamAtHRStories.com for suggestions and inquiries.The viewpoints expressed by the characters in the stories are not necessarily that of The Team at HR Stories. The stories are shared to present various, real-world scenarios and share how they were handled by policy and, at times, law. Chuck and John are not lawyers and always recommend working with an employment lawyer to address concerns.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect former employees who neither hold nor desire a job at the time of an employer's alleged act of discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court.Title 1 of the A-D-A makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a “qualified individual” based on disability regarding compensation and other employment matters. The statute defines a “qualified individual” as someone who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” The present-tense verbs—“holds,” “desires,” and “can perform”—signal that the law protects individuals able to perform a job they currently hold or seek when discrimination occurs, not retirees who neither hold nor desire employment. The statute's definition of “reasonable accommodation,” which includes job restructuring and modifying facilities for employees, reinforces this interpretation by referencing accommodations that make sense only for current employees or job applicants, not retirees.The A-D-A's structure further supports this reading through its examples of discrimination in Section 12112(b), such as “qualification standards” and “employment tests,” which clearly aim to protect job holders and seekers rather than retirees. Additionally, comparing Title 1 with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reveals that while Title VII protects “employees” without temporal qualification, the A-D-A's use of “qualified individual” linked to present-tense verbs indicates protection for current job holders or seekers only. The Court's precedent in Cleveland v Policy Management Systems Corporation anticipated that someone may fall outside the A-D-A's protections if she can no longer perform the job.Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, expressing concern about litigants changing their arguments after the Court grants certiorari.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that Title 1's prohibition on disability discrimination should not cease when an employee retires.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor in parts, arguing that the majority misreads Title 1 by viewing it through “the distorted lens of pure textualism,” incorrectly using the qualified individual definition as a temporal limit it was never designed to be, and thereby rendering meaningless the A-D-A's protections for disabled workers' retirement benefits just when those protections matter most.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Now more than ever, Christians in the workplace are facing mounting challenges. Whether it's pressure to compromise values, fear of expressing faith, or outright hostility from employers or peers—being a follower of Christ in today's marketplace takes courage and conviction. In this powerful episode, we dive deep into what it means to stand strong in your faith without losing your grace, dignity, or voice. Featured Guest: Noah Nash Counsel, Corporate Engagement at Alliance Defending Freedom Noah Nash brings a wealth of experience in advocating for the rights of Christians in corporate environments. As part of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), one of the nation's leading legal organizations defending religious liberty, Noah works closely with corporations, business leaders, and executives navigating complex religious freedom issues. Key Topics Covered The Erosion of Authenticity in the Workplace Many employees feel afraid to speak about their beliefs in the workplace. Noah explains how to be bold in your faith at work while being respectful of your colleagues and employer, even when the environment discourages you from living out your faith at work Understanding Your Legal Rights Learn what protections you do have under federal law. Discover how ADF equips employers with tools and strategies to defend their freedom of belief. Learn how public companies must respect employee speech and free exercise of religion. Charlene Carter v. Southwest Airlines: A Case Study Charlene, a Southwest flight attendant, was fired after expressing her pro-life views to her union president. A jury awarded her $800,000, recognizing the violation of her religious liberty. The employee was discriminated against for her religious activities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The jury verdict against Southwest on this claim was upheld on appeal. Noah unpacks the legal implications and what this means for Christian employees moving forward. Encouragement for the Christian Employee As a believer, you're called to be salt and light—even in challenging workplaces. This episode offers encouragement, clarity, and action steps for navigating professional life without compromising your faith. “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:10 Listen to the Full Episode (Insert Link) About Alliance Defending Freedom ADF is a legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, parental rights, and marriage and family. Through corporate engagement and litigation, ADF equips Christians across the country to live out their faith without fear. If your organization is facing religious liberty concerns or if you're navigating a difficult workplace dynamic, we encourage you to listen to this episode and share it with others who need hope and help. Concerned about your organization's as-is HR programs? The benefits of having a trusted partner guide you and your team to excellence are invaluable. Contact us today. You and your employees will be glad you did. Rise with us by implementing our high-performance remote human-resource programs to help find great people! E-mail us here. Mark A. Griffin is president and founder of IHN HR. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.   The Supreme Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.First, the Equal Protection Clause does not require heightened scrutiny because Tennessee's law does not classify on any bases that warrant such review. The law contains only two classifications: one based on age (allowing treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for certain conditions but not for treating gender dysphoria). Classifications based on age or medical use receive only rational basis review—the most deferential standard of constitutional review. The law does not classify based on sex because it prohibits healthcare providers from administering these treatments to any minor for the excluded diagnoses, regardless of the minor's biological sex. When properly understood as regulating specific combinations of drugs and medical indications, the law treats all minors equally: none may receive these treatments for gender dysphoria, but minors of any sex may receive them for other qualifying conditions like precocious puberty or congenital defects.The law satisfies rational basis review because Tennessee's legislature had reasonable grounds for its restrictions. The state found that these treatments for gender dysphoria carry risks including irreversible sterility, increased disease risk, and adverse psychological consequences, while minors lack the maturity to understand these consequences and many express later regret. Tennessee also determined that the treatments are experimental with unknown long-term effects, and that gender dysphoria can often be resolved through less invasive approaches. Under rational basis review, courts must uphold laws if there are any reasonably conceivable facts supporting the classification. States have wide discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty, noting that recent reports from health authorities in England and other countries have raised similar concerns about the evidence supporting these treatments for minors.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that Bostock v Clayton County (in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes discrimination based on transgender identity or sexual orientation) should not apply to Equal Protection Clause analysis and criticizing deference to medical experts who lack consensus and have allowed political ideology to influence their guidance on transgender treatments for minors.Justice Barrett authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group” and because suspect class analysis should focus on a history of de jure (legal) discrimination rather than private discrimination.

In episode 206, Coffey talks with Jill Koob about the Supreme Court decision on “reverse discrimination,” PTO policy trends, and AI adoption in the workplace. They discuss the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services eliminating different standards for "reverse discrimination" cases; how Title VII protects all individuals equally regardless of majority or minority status within protected classes; the challenges and failures of unlimited PTO policies leading employees to take less time off; new flexible PTO approaches allowing conversion to cash, student loan payments, or 401k contributions; mitigating bias in the employee selection process; why diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives should focus on business outcomes and widening candidate pools; the evolution of AI from individual productivity tools to organizational workforce transformation; the need for employees to actively learn and adopt AI tools to remain competitive; and how AI can handle transactional HR tasks while freeing professionals to focus on more strategic human-centered work. Links to stuff they talked about are on our website at https://goodmorninghr.com/EP206 and include the following topics: Breaking—Supreme Court Unanimously Lowers Bar for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Redefines Title VII Litigation More companies are letting workers cash in their vacation days. Should yours? 2025 Benefits and Compensation Trends Report How enterprise AI is reshaping EX, according to expert Josh Bersin AI superworkers ‘coming on like a freight train.' Are you ready? Amazon CEO Jassy says AI will reduce its corporate workforce in the next few years Message from CEO Andy Jassy: Some thoughts on Generative AI  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: Jill Koob, SPHR, SHRM – SCP is the founder and owner of Energize HR, an HR Consulting Firm that focuses on training solutions, strategic HR and organizational development and human resource support. Prior to starting her company, Jill served as a VP for a Houston Based Professional Employer Organization, where they received numerous awards including Best Places to Work and Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing companies. Jill has over twenty-five years of strategic HR experience working directly with hundreds of businesses with their people strategy needs. Jill Koob can be reached at:https://energizehr.com/https://www.linkedin.com/in/jillkoob/   About 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 a Best Places to Work, 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 serves as a board member of a number of organizations, including the Texas State Council, where he serves Texas' 31 SHRM chapters as State Director-Elect; Workforce Solutions for Tarrant County; the Texas Association of Business; and the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, where he is chair of the Talent Committee.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) and teaches multiple times each week. Mike and his very patient wife of 28 years are empty nesters in Fort Worth.   Learning Objectives: 1.       Understand that Title VII protects all individuals equally within protected classes, requiring the same burden of proof regardless of whether someone belongs to a majority or minority group within that class.2.       Design flexible PTO policies with clear guidelines and minimum requirements while offering options for employees to convert unused time to other benefits like cash, student loans, or retirement contributions.3.       Embrace AI as a collaborative tool for analyzing data, reducing bias in hiring processes, and handling transactiona...

In this episode, Dennis Hyde sits down with legal counsel from the Higher Education Practice Group at Church Church Hittle + Antrim (CCHA) to discuss the legal landscape surrounding federal regulations aimed at preventing sex-based discrimination on college campuses. A key focus of the discussion is the growing impact of pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions in higher education settings.  In this podcast, the two Partners at CCHA discuss laws and regulations that apply to pregnancy on campus, what the compliance mechanisms are for those laws, the unique challenges of pregnant student-athletes, and practical advice for universities. The episode highlights how laws that apply to pregnancy on campus are unique as well as what constitutes a "pregnancy-related condition," and how institutions can ensure compliance. The conversation also explores how the Biden administration's approach to Title IX enforcement on pregnancy differs from that of the Trump era.E&I Host:Dennis Hyde, Category Marketing Manager, E&I Cooperative ServicesGuests:James Nussbaum, Partner at CCHA & Jodie Ferise, Partner at CCHACooperatively Speaking is hosted by E&I Cooperative Services, the only member-owned, non-profit procurement cooperative exclusively focused on serving the needs of education. Visit our website at www.eandi.org/podcast.Contact UsHave questions, comments, or ideas for a future episode? We'd love to hear from you! Contact Cooperatively Speaking at podcast@eandi.org. This podcast is for informational purposes only. The views expressed in this podcast may not be those of the host(s) or E&I Cooperative Services.

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 episode, we examine recent executive orders affecting DEI, including EO 14173 and EO 14174. We then discuss setbacks, organizational responses, and strategies for resilience.Resources for the nerds:Article about the paradox of meritocracy in organizations and how this can actually fuel bias favoring men compared to equally high-performing women.The Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology's response related to Title VII and Job-Relevant Employment Practices

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

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.

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.

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

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

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