BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Employment and Workers Comp

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Wednesday, July 10, 2024

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

The CLE webinar will provide an in-depth look at the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (U.S. 2024) that has lowered the bar for plaintiffs to prevail in Title VII discrimination claims. The panel will discuss the impact that Muldrow will have on defending these claims and the possible effect the decision may have on corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The panel will also provide best practices for counsel to assist their employer clients with assessing and mitigating vulnerabilities in their policies and processes that they may have in light of Muldrow.

Faculty

Robert M. Hale
Partner, Chair, Employment Practice
Goodwin, LLP

Mr. Hale’s practice involves representation of clients in employment litigation, including noncompetition, discrimination, wrongful discharge, FLSA and ERISA litigation. He has obtained successful results for employers at all stages of litigation, including in preliminary injunction proceedings, at summary judgment, at trial and on appeal. Mr. Hale is experienced in successfully representing employers before administrative agencies and in labor arbitrations. His practice also includes counseling in numerous areas of labor and employment law, including disability discrimination, sexual harassment and other discrimination matters; noncompetition agreement and other restrictive covenants; downsizing; employment agreements; wage and hour compliance; collective bargaining; and personnel policy development and administration. In addition, Mr. Hale is experienced in providing training for managers, supervisors and human resources professionals. He is a former employer Co-Chair of the Federal Labor Standards Legislation Committee of the ABA and is a former chair of the ABA's subcommittee on the Family and Medical Leave Act, the ABA's subcommittee on the WARN Act and the Boston Bar Association's Employee Benefits/ERISA Committee. 

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Andrew R. Turnbull
Partner
Morrison Foerster

Mr. Turnbull represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters, successfully defending clients in number complex matters before federal and state courts and administrative agencies. A primary focus of his practice involves helping companies navigate the unique employment issues that arise when doing business with the federal government. He is also well-versed in defending clients against claims alleging trade secret misappropriation, breach of post-employment restrictions, wage-and-hour violations, discrimination, and retaliation. Mr. Turnbull also routinely develops practical, proactive strategies to help employers minimize risk on various human resource matters. In addition, he advises on a wide range of employment transactional matters, such as drafting and negotiating executive employment agreements and separations, overseeing internal investigations and audits of employment issues, and conducting employment diligence on mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions. Mr. Turnbull has significant experience advising technology and other companies on protecting against the loss of trade secrets, proprietary information, and current and prospective clients.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

On Apr. 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis lowered the bar that plaintiffs must meet to prevail in Title VII discrimination claims which requires they be able to show that the employer took an adverse employment action against them because of the employee's protected class.

In Muldrow, the Court unanimously rejected the "materially significant disadvantage" standard used by most circuits when determining whether the level of harm suffered by the employee in a job transfer was adequate to establish an adverse employment action. Rather, the Court held that a plaintiff may proceed with a Title VII claim if they can show "some injury" resulting from the employment action. Although the case specifically addressed lateral job transfers, employment counsel and clients can expect that plaintiffs will likely argue that the new standard be applied to any allegedly discriminatory action that causes the plaintiff some harm.

In addition to causing employers concern about increased Title VII litigation, the Muldrow decision may provide an opening to challenge corporate DEI programs. Although DEI programs were not addressed in this case, opponents of DEI may attempt to use Muldrow's reasoning to challenge corporate DEI initiatives claiming that exclusions from programs intended to support underrepresented groups have a negative impact on terms and conditions of employment.

Listen as our expert panel provides an in-depth look at the Muldrow decision and its resulting impact on litigating Title VII discrimination claims and possible effect on employer DEI initiatives. The panel will also address best practices for assisting employer clients with proactively assessing policies and procedures to mitigate risk and limit vulnerability in Title VII actions.

Outline

  1. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (U. S. 2024)
    1. Case history
    2. Circuit split
    3. New standard to establish adverse employment action: from "significant disadvantage" to "some injury"
    4. Alternative analyses by concurring opinions
  2. Defending Title VII discrimination claims post-Muldrow
    1. Lateral job transfers
    2. Applicability to other changes to terms and conditions of employment
    3. Plaintiff's burden of proof
    4. Other employer defenses
    5. Motion practice
  3. Impact on employer policies and procedures
  4. Possible effect on DEI initiatives
    1. Impact of SFFA v. Harvard on employment
    2. Update on litigation concerning DEI initiatives
    3. Potential application of Muldrow to different types of DEI initiatives
  5. Practitioner takeaways

Benefits

The panel will review these and other important considerations:

  • What is the new standard of harm that plaintiffs must show to demonstrate an adverse employment action in Title VII discrimination claims?
  • How will the new Muldrow standard impact employer defenses?
  • What impact may this standard have on motion practice?
  • How may Muldrow affect corporate DEI initiatives?
  • What should counsel be encouraging employers to do now to mitigate risk in light of the Muldrow ruling?