As a reminder, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from retaliating against applicants or employees who oppose age discrimination, file a charge of discrimination under the statute, or testify, assist, or participate an investigation or proceeding under the ADEA.
On March 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
According to a February 27, 2026, 2-1 decision by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Selina S. v. Dep’t of the Army, the EEOC determined that it does not constitute sex discrimination for federal agencies to prohibit transgender employees from using bathrooms, locker rooms, and other intimate spaces that correspond with their
Recently the Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued multiple items on national origin discrimination and anti-American bias. These materials signal that the agencies consider any national origin preference — including any actions favoring nonimmigrant visa holders — to be discrimination. Additionally, they make clear that multiple agencies view anti-American actions as an
When did you last update your employee handbook? With the end of the year nearing, now is a good time. Your policies should provide clear guidelines to your workforce about what you expect of them. Policies should also be a guide to HR regarding complaint procedures, discharge procedures, and even investigations if those are a
Like almost every federal agency, things have certainly changed at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the last 10 months. One of those significant changes has been the departure from investigation of claims asserting the “disparate impact” theory. A plaintiff in a disparate impact case, generally speaking, must show that a seemingly neutral policy
Employee activity on social media is a hot topic. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed a case in which a university employee was denied opportunities following a Twitter tirade. The court affirmed that the university did not discriminate against the employee, did not violate the First Amendment, and upheld the university’s actions. This
In, Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act, holding that Title I’s employment discrimination provisions do not apply to individuals who are retired and no longer hold or seek employment. The decision, a 7-2 majority written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, gives employers
If a qualified job candidate asks to reschedule a second-round interview due to severe menstrual cramps associated with endometriosis, is that a request for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act? If you deny the request, could it be the basis of a sex discrimination claim under Title VII? The EEOC thinks so and
Before June 5, 2025, the law (at least in some jurisdictions) was that majority-group employees (e.g., white or heterosexual) had to show additional “background circumstances” in addition to a prima facie case to prove discrimination – a heightened evidentiary standard. However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the “background circumstances” rule in Ames v. Ohio
If you have a grooming policy based on safety factors (like no beards for firefighters), does that trump an employee’s request for a religious accommodation? Maybe not. A recent Third Circuit decision, Smith v. City of Atlantic City, et al., addressed this issue and partially reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in