Discrimination

Expert Analysis

• 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.

• How End Of Forced Arb. Is Affecting Sex Harassment Cases

  

  A little over a year after the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault Act became effective, we have started seeing substantive interpretation of the EFAA, almost exclusively from the U.S. district courts in New York, and there are two key takeaways for employers, says Lisa Haldar at Lawrence & Bundy.

• Adjusting Anti-Harassment Policies For Remote Work

  Excerpt from Practical Guidance

  

  Limited employee oversight and a lack of privacy in virtual meetings are just two examples of drawbacks to remote work that increase the risk of workplace harassment — but employers can adapt their existing anti-harassment policies to better suit these circumstances, says Ellen Holloman at Cadwalader.

• Worker Accommodations After Justices' Religious Bias Ruling

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Groff v. DeJoy decision makes it easier for employees to obtain religious accommodations under Title VII, it also guarantees more litigation over what counts as a substantial hardship for businesses, as lower courts will have to interpret the exact contours of the new standard, says Caroline Corbin at the University of Miami School of Law.

• The Differing Court Approaches To Pay Equity Questions

  

  Employers face the tough task of navigating an increasingly complex patchwork of pay equity laws and court interpretations, say attorneys at Hunton.

• Legal Profession Must Do More For Lawyers With Disabilities

  

  At the start of Disability Pride month, Rosalyn Richter at Arnold & Porter looks at why lawyers with disabilities are significantly underrepresented in private practice, asserting that law firms and other employers must do more to conquer the implicit bias that deters attorneys from seeking accommodations.