Discrimination

Subscribe to Discrimination via RSS

The 2024–2025 California legislative session came to an official close at midnight on October 13, 2025, when Governor Newsom’s deadline to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature expired. Of the approximately 917 bills passed by the Legislature, the Governor signed 794 bills into law and vetoed 123 bills. The bills signed into law include several new employment-related laws for California employers.Continue Reading California’s 2024-2025 Legislative Session Closes with a Host of New Employment Laws for 2026

On August 15, 2025, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed Senate Bill 2487 into law, amending the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/7A-102. Among other reforms going into effect on January 1, 2026, the legislation fundamentally changes how the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR” or the “Department”) processes charges of discrimination.Continue Reading Illinois Department of Human Rights Eliminates Fact-Finding Conferences: What It Means for Charges of Discrimination

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (the “Age Act”) proscribes age-based discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. The Age Act generally does not restrict age discrimination in employment practices, as this is the purview of a separate federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the “ADEA”). On August 18, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ranking of medical residents by medical schools is an “employment practice” to which the Age Act does not apply. The case, Spatz v. Regents of the University of California, clarifies that the decision not to accept a medical student into a residency program does not give rise to a cause of action under the Age Act.Continue Reading Age Discrimination Act—Which Proscribes Age Discrimination in Programs Receiving Federal Assistance—Does Not Apply to Medical Residency Rankings, Ninth Circuit Panel Rules

Effective October 1, 2025, updated regulations from the California Civil Rights Council will formally restrict the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in employment decision-making by California employers. In the employment context, these tools can be applied in a litany of ways to manage the workforce, including to screen resumes, make predictions about an applicant or employee, measure an applicant or employee’s skills or abilities, direct job advertisements and recruiting materials to targeted groups, and screen, evaluate, and/or recommend applications or employees.Continue Reading California Approves Rules Regulating AI in Employment Decision-making

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the case of San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump temporarily halted enforcement of parts of the diversity, equity and inclusion and “gender ideology” Executive Orders – specifically, as they apply to the named plaintiffs in the case. Continue Reading California District Court Partially Enjoins Application of DEI and “Gender Ideology” Executive Orders Against Coalition of LGBTQIA+ Nonprofit Organizations

As we previously reported here, here, and here, employers must navigate a rapidly evolving legal landscape as artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform the modern workplace. From federal rollbacks to aggressive state-level regulation, the use of AI in employment decisions—particularly in hiring, performance management, and surveillance—has become a focal point for lawmakers, regulators, and litigators alike. This article contains an overview of the shifting federal landscape on the use of AI at work, the state level response, and offers recommendations for employers to mitigate risk.Continue Reading Where Are We Now With the Use of AI in the Workplace?

On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” (the “Executive Order”) seeking to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.”Continue Reading New Executive Order Aims to End Disparate Impact Liability for Discrimination

On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), together with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), issued a press release cautioning employers against discrimination arising from diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) programs. More specifically, the EEOC and DOJ warned that such initiatives “may be unlawful if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated – in whole or in part – by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another characteristic.” The press release incorporated new guidance from the EEOC regarding DEI-related discrimination in the workplace: (i) a one-page technical assistance document titled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work” (the “Guidance”); and (ii) a longer set of frequently asked questions titled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work” (the “FAQs”). Both documents demonstrate the Trump Administration’s commitment to cracking down on corporate DEI initiatives, and represent a sea change from Biden-era EEOC’s enforcement priorities. This article outlines the Guidance and the FAQs, and suggests compliance measures for employers to consider in light of their content.Continue Reading New EEOC Guidance Creates DEI Compliance Considerations for Employers

On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi disseminated an internal memo within the Department of Justice (DOJ). The memo, Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences, explained that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.”Continue Reading Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences Memo

On January 7, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s Title VII religious bias suit—holding the case was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage. The matter, Barnett v. Inova Health Care Services, provides key insights and reminders for employers attempting to balance workplace policies with employees’ religious beliefs.Continue Reading Vax On: Fourth Circuit Reinstates Plaintiff’s Religious Bias Suit in COVID Vaccine Mandate Case

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government” (the “EO”). The EO declares that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” The EO explicitly rejects “gender ideology,” which, according to the EO, includes the notion “that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa” and “it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.”Continue Reading Analyzing President Trump’s “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government” Executive Order