Employment Litigation

EEOC Quorum Restored: Five Critical Enforcement Shifts for Employers

Commissioner Brittany Panuccio’s confirmation on October 7, 2025 restored the EEOC’s quorum, removing the constraints that limited Chair Andrea Lucas during the eight-month period when the Commission operated with just two members. The Commission can now formally adopt new guidance, rescind prior guidance and policies, authorize litigation, approve amicus briefs, and modify its Strategic Enforcement Plan —actions that were not possible without three commissioners.

Based on Chair Lucas’ stated priorities and enforcement actions already underway, employers face 5 critical enforcement shifts.

Continue reading “EEOC Quorum Restored: Five Critical Enforcement Shifts for Employers”

Reminder for California Employers: Immigration Status Protection

The California Labor Commissioner’s Office has recently reminded California employers of protections available to workers regardless of their immigration status. California workers are protected from unfair immigration-related practices, and it is unlawful for any employer to retaliate against a worker for exercising these protections. It is also unlawful for an employer to fail to comply with notice requirements about immigration enforcement actions at worksites. We summarize California laws that prohibit discrimination and retaliation based on immigration status.

To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

Supreme Court Clarifies Title VII Disparate Treatment Theory: What Employers Should Know in the Evolving Legal Environment

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court unanimously settled the burden required by a plaintiff to satisfy a prima facie showing of disparate treatment discrimination by an employer. On June 5, 2025, the Court held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services¹ that the plain text of Title VII does not differentiate burden requirements between minority-group plaintiffs and those of a majority group.

The decision specifically impacts the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal, which had identified a heightened burden for a prima facie case of disparate treatment by majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII. Nevertheless, employers everywhere should be mindful of this legal development, particularly considering other recent policy changes to anti-discrimination enforcement under the Trump administration.

Continue reading “Supreme Court Clarifies Title VII Disparate Treatment Theory: What Employers Should Know in the Evolving Legal Environment”

SCOTUS Orders NLRB to Follow Same Injunction Standards as Other Litigants

This decision has largely been cast as a win for Starbucks and a blow for labor. However, as other courts had already recognized, there is no language in the National Labor Relations Act that grants the NLRB special access to the powerful tool of preliminary injunctions. SCOTUS’s decision merely standardized that recognition across the federal circuits.

To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

Minnesota’s 2024 Legislation Updates: Employment Law

Last year, the Minnesota Legislature enacted sweeping changes to the employment law landscape through the Jobs and Economic Development and Labor Omnibus Budget Bill. Now, Governor Tim Walz has signed the 2024 Omnibus Labor and Industry Policy Bill and the 2024 Transportation, Housing, and Labor Omnibus Budget Bill, which bring about several notable changes to Minnesota law covering pregnancy accommodations, restrictive covenants in service contracts, minimum wage, information required in job postings, and oral fluid drug, cannabis, and alcohol testing. The bills also contain provisions enacting changes to Minnesota’s earned sick and safe time law, paid family and medical leave, and worker misclassification, and changes to the Minnesota Human Rights Act have also been enacted.

To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

Anti-DEI Updates: State Legislation and Honeyfund v. DeSantis

Honeyfund is part of a broader reconsideration of the limitations of DEI-related activity in the wake of Fair Admissions, which held race-conscious admissions policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As current legislation and litigation trends illustrate, DEI-related legal battles do not seem to be abating anytime soon.

To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.