Adam Bouka

By Adam Bouka

In May 2025, Google agreed to pay $50 million to settle a high-profile class action brought by Black and multiracial employees who alleged systemic racial discrimination in hiring, leveling, and promotion. That same month, the US Supreme Court unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that Title VII does not impose extra burdens on plaintiffs from “majority” groups. Together, these developments represent a clarion call for HR leaders: equity must be pursued with integrity, and legal compliance must rest on neutral standards.

Google’s $50M Settlement: A Warning and a Blueprint

In Curley v. Google LLC, a group of Black and multiracial employees alleged that Google maintained a “two-tiered” workplace system that consistently placed them at a disadvantage. According to the lawsuit, even though these individuals had qualifications and experience equal to or greater than their peers, they were often hired into lower-level positions. Once employed, they faced limited opportunities for advancement, were subject to racial stereotyping, and remained largely excluded from leadership roles due to a workplace culture that failed to support equity and inclusion. Read more >>

Mark Wiletsky

by Mark Wiletsky

When an employee complains of discrimination or harassment, companies often investigate the matter.  Doing so allows a company to address alleged improper behavior and it may allow the company to avoid potential liability – if it takes prompt remedial action.  But what if the employee believes the company’s investigation was half-hearted or inadequate – is that retaliatory?  A recent decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms that even a shoddy investigation does not give rise to a retaliation claim, absent some additional harm.

Stacie Culp and Stephanie Peters worked as servers at a restaurant operated by Remington of Montrose Golf Club (Remington). Both alleged that they were sexually harassed by the bartender / assistant floor manager. Initially, neither Culp nor Peters reported the harassment. Peters alleged that Remington management had not taken action in response to past complaints, and Culp feared that her complaints would not be taken seriously.

Culp eventually mentioned the harassment to a manager at a different restaurant, where she applied to return to her former job. This information reached Remington’s management, prompting an investigation. Remington interviewed 10 female servers, but asked each person only two questions: (1) is there anything inappropriate around the bartender that you would like to disclose or talk about, and is there anything you would like to add?  Remington did not ask the individuals whether they had witnessed any inappropriate conduct between Culp or Peters and the bartender, nor did it ask follow-up questions, even when the interviewees disclosed harassment or other inappropriate conduct. Read more >>

Brit Merrill

By Brit Merrill and Mickell Jimenez

Warning of unlawful DEI-related discrimination in the workplace, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance this week outlining when a DEI initiative, policy, or practice may be unlawful under Title VII.

The guidance includes a joint one-page technical assistance document titled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work” and an EEOC-issued question-and-answer technical assistance document titled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work.” Technical assistance documents do not carry the force of law and are not legally binding, but do provide insight and guidance on agency policy.

Mickell Jimenez

Key Takeaways

1. DEI programs cannot segregate or exclude employees based on a protected characteristic.

Prohibited conduct may include

• “Limiting membership in workplace groups, such as Employee Resource Groups (ERG) or other employee affinity groups, to certain protected groups”; and
• “Separating employees into groups based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic when administering DEI or other trainings, or other privileges of employment, even if the separate groups receive the same programming content or amount of employer resources[.]”

Note the guidance that “other privileges of employment” cannot segregate or exclude employees based on a protected characteristic.  As detailed below, the guidance specifies that this applies to exclusion from training, mentorship programs, and fellowships. Read more >>

by Kody Condos and Leslie Perkins

Today, June 18, 2024, marks the effective date of the Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act (“PWFA”) Final Rule, which is now effective in 48 states. The path to implementing the PWFA has been fraught with lawsuits, culminating in this week’s starkly opposing court decisions.

Kody Condos

First, U.S. District Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. (Arkansas) dismissed a motion for preliminary injunction filed in April by attorneys general from 18 states against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission challenging the provisions of the PWFA related to employers being required to provide reasonable accommodations for employees seeking elective abortions. Judge Marshall held the attorneys general lacked standing to sue and that the states could not show a likelihood of irreparable harm, an element required for a preliminary injunction to be successful. Because of the lack of standing and failure to meet a required element of a preliminary injunction, the Court denied the preliminary injunction as moot and ordered dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice. Read more >>

by JT Washington

JT Washington

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) issued a final regulation to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”). The regulation goes into effect on June 18, 2024. The PWFA initially went into effect on June 27, 2023.  A primary objective of the law is to allow pregnant employees to continue working as long as they are capable, benefitting both the employees and their employers. The PWFA requires covered employers to make affirmative efforts to provide “reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee” unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. “Covered employers” include private and public sector employers with at least 15 employees, Congress, Federal agencies, employment agencies, and labor organizations. The PWFA also prohibits employers from:

• Requiring an employee to accept an accommodation without a discussion between the employee and the employer about the accommodation;
• Denying employment opportunities to a qualified employee or applicant based on the person’s need for a reasonable accommodation;
• Requiring an employee to take leave, paid or unpaid, if another reasonable accommodation can be provided to the employee;
• Taking adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment against an employee because the employee requested or used a reasonable accommodation;
• Retaliating against an employee who opposed any unlawful act or practice under the PWFA or because an employee made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the PWFA; or
• Coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with any individual’s rights under the PWFA.

Read more >>

Kody Condos

by Kody Condos and JT Washington

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), the newest member of the family of federal anti-discrimination laws, is almost one year old! Instead of inviting employers over for cake and photo ops, after one year of accepting charges of discrimination under the law, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) has gifted employers with its interpretive guidelines instead. If you do not know them already, keep reading. The PWFA differs from other anti-discrimination laws in some very important ways that employers will want, and need to understand.

JT Washington

The PWFA went into effect on June 27, 2023. The EEOC’s regulations governing the PWFA go into effect on June 18, 2024. Like the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), the PWFA requires covered employers to provide qualifying employees and applicants accommodations to perform their work duties safely and without discrimination or retaliation.

This post covers key provisions of the PWFA and the EEOC’s regulations governing the law. Read more >>

Mark Wiletsky

by Mark Wiletsky

Can an employee sue under Title VII to challenge a lateral transfer, even if the transfer does not result in a loss of pay?  According to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the answer is: Yes. Employers transfer employees, or take other actions, for a variety of reasons.  Until recently, so long as those decisions did not significantly or materially impact the employee’s terms and conditions of employment, the employee did not have a viable discrimination claim.  That standard is no longer the law of the land.  Now, if there was “some harm” as a result of a transfer or other action, and the action was based on an employee’s protected characteristic, the employee can assert a discrimination claim.

Factual Background. From 2008 through 2017, Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow worked in a coveted position in the specialized Intelligence Division of the St. Louis Police Department. In 2017, her new commander sought to replace her with a male officer.  The new commander did not fire her; instead, he transferred Muldrow to a uniformed role in another department. Although her rank and pay remained unaltered, the responsibilities, privileges, and schedule of her new position significantly differed from her previous role. In Muldrow’s original role, she worked in a “premier position” with high-ranking officials on department priorities in the Intelligence Division.  Her new role, she claimed, was less prestigious or focused more on administrative tasks.  Muldrow supervised day-to-day activities of neigh­borhood patrol officers, including approving their arrests, reviewing their reports, and handling other administrative matters; she even did some patrol work her­self. As a result of the transfer, Muldrow lost her FBI status and the car that came with it, and she went from a regular Monday through Friday schedule to working a “rotating schedule,” including weekend shifts. Read more >>

Mark Wiletsky

by Mark Wiletsky

Question: Do employers need to provide a space for employees to worship and/or pray in the office?

Answer: The short answer is: Maybe.  Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.  For decades, courts held that employers could deny such requests under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if the accommodation would impose more than a “de minimis” cost or burden.  In June 2023, however, the U.S. Supreme Court “clarified” that standard.  In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court held that employers can deny requests for religious accommodation only if the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [an employer’s] particular business.”  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has provided similar guidance, stating that employers should not try to suppress all religious expression in the workplace. Read more >>

Laurie Rogers

by Laurie Rogers

Pregnant workers have certain protections under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but gaps remain. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to close the gaps and better protect pregnant employees. To implement the Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently proposed regulations that significantly increase employers’ obligations to reasonably accommodate their pregnant employees.

Expanded protections

On August 11, 2023, the EEOC proposed rules to implement the PWFA, a law that took effect on June 27, 2023. Before the PWFA, the PDA (which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and the ADA provided pregnant and postpartum applicants and employees with certain limited protections.

Under the PDA, pregnant workers can show a violation only if they can identify similarly situated employees who received an accommodation or if there is direct evidence of disparate treatment. Under the ADA, pregnant employees have a right to an accommodation only if they can demonstrate they have a pregnancy-related disability, which doesn’t include the pregnancy itself. Read more >>