Discrimination

Expert Analysis

• Equinox Bias Verdict Shows Swift Employer Response Is Key

  

  A nearly $11.3 million jury verdict against Equinox in New York federal court shows just how high the stakes are for employers dealing with harassment and discrimination in the workplace, and how important consistent investigation and discipline are when responding to individual internal complaints, says Jennifer Huelskamp at Porter Wright.

• A Midyear Review Of EEOC's Gender-Related Priorities

  

  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2023-2027 strategic enforcement plan focuses on various gender-related issues such as the enactment of pregnancy discrimination and pay transparency laws, and now, more than halfway through the fiscal year, the EEOC's enforcement of such laws is set to surpass previous years, say attorneys at Proskauer.

• Employer Drug-Testing Policies Must Evolve With State Law

  

  As multistate employers face ongoing challenges in drafting consistent marijuana testing policies due to the evolving patchwork of state laws, they should note some emerging patterns among local and state statutes to ensure compliance in different jurisdictions, say attorneys at Troutman Pepper.

• Insurance Implications Of High Court Affirmative Action Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down affirmative action admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina will likely result in more litigation related to hiring practices, with implications for insurance coverage, meaning policyholders must remain wary of exclusions and other potential roadblocks, say attorneys at Pillsbury.

• 4 Strategies To Counter Antisemitism In The Workplace

  

  With antisemitism on the rise in the U.S., employers have a duty to help Jewish employees feel safe and supported in their professional lives by adapting the four points of the Biden administration's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism for the workplace, say Johanna Zelman and Rachel Ullrich at FordHarrison.

• Employer Steps To Protect DEI Plans Post-Affirmative Action

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action in higher education may embolden opponents of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the employment context, but employers can take steps to mitigate litigation risks while still advancing their internal policy goals, say Greg Demers and Renai Rodney at Ropes & Gray.

• Unpacking The POWR Act, Colo.'s New Work Harassment Law

  

  With the August rollout of Colorado’s Protecting Opportunities and Workers' Rights Act set to make it easier for employees to claim harassment, companies should confirm that their harassment prevention programs satisfy the law’s requirements and provide a clear method to investigate any future claims, say Mamie Ling and Michael Freimann at Armstrong Teasdale.

• Complying With AI Guidance In Employment Decisions

  

  Following the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recently updated guidance on the use of artificial intelligence for employment-related decisions, employers need to adapt in kind to ensure they are using technology in a responsible, compliant and nondiscriminatory manner, say Luke Bickel and Yasamin Parsafar at Sheppard Mullin.

• NY, Minn. Set Pace For Employee Breastfeeding Protections

  

  Breastfeeding employees have gotten increased legal protections through recently effective amendments in New York and Minnesota, and the laws underline the need for employers to watch for state-level legislative efforts to extend these protections beyond federal requirements, say John Litchfield and Miranda Curtis at Foley & Lardner.

• Bar Score Is Best Hiring Metric Post-Affirmative Action

  

  After the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling striking down affirmative action admissions policies, law firms looking to foster diversity in hiring should view an applicant's Multistate Bar Examination score as the best metric of legal ability — over law school name or GPA, says attorney Alice Griffin.

• What To Expect From High Court's Whistleblower Case

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Murray v. UBS Securities will likely have widespread implications for the future of anti-retaliation whistleblower litigation, and could make it more difficult for would-be whistleblower-employees to succeed on anti-retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, say Ann-Elizabeth Ostrager and Diane McGimsey at Sullivan & Cromwell.

• 'Equal Harassment' Is No Shield Against Title VII Claims

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sharp v. S&S Activewear, rejecting an employer's claim that it did not create a sexually hostile work environment because the misogynist music it played offended all workers equally, reminds companies that they can face Title VII liability even when misconduct does not target a specific group, says Laura Lawless at Squire Patton.

• Recent Changes Mark A Key Moment For New York High Court

  

  Recent developments in the New York Court of Appeals — from rapid turnover and increasing diversity, to a perception among some of growing politicization — mark an important turning point, and the court will continue to evolve in the coming year as it considers a number of important cases, say attorneys at Gibson Dunn.