Latest news with #SeyfarthShaw
New York Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Will White Men Rush to Court After Justices' Latest Ruling? Not Likely.
A Supreme Court ruling on Thursday handed a victory to white Americans and straight people who believe they have been discriminated against in the workplace. But just how widespread are those complaints? President Trump and his allies have argued that discrimination against white Americans and straight people is a workplace scourge that often occurs under the cover of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. His administration has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls 'illegal D.E.I.,' including ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. language from government websites. Experts in employment law argue that the reality is more complicated, and say that the Supreme Court ruling is unlikely to drastically change the makeup of those filing and winning workplace discrimination cases. 'It will likely continue to be that a majority of discrimination cases are filed by minority-group members,' said Camille Olson, a partner at the management-side law firm Seyfarth Shaw. 'But I think there will be an increasing number of cases that are filed by individuals who are either male or heterosexual or not a member of a minority race or religion.' Federal government data suggest that members of so-called majority groups have historically brought only a small fraction of discrimination cases. Of the roughly 21,000 charges of race-based employment discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2021, only slightly more than 10 percent — about 2,350 — involved charges of discrimination against white people. Ms. Olson said that such figures almost certainly understated the number of cases of discrimination against white people in the workplace, partly because the law in many parts of the country created an obstacle to litigating these cases. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's latest workplace discrimination ruling could have major repercussions for employers and lead to a wave of new lawsuits
A Thursday Supreme Court decision about workplace discrimination is expected to change the way that employment law is practiced in the U.S. and make it easier for people to lodge claims against their organizations. The court unanimously ruled that people who belong to majority groups, which would include white people or heterosexual people, do not need to show a higher standard of proof or 'background circumstances' in order to sue their employers. Until now, some lower circuit courts placed a higher burden on these plaintiffs, requiring them to prove that their employer was unusual in its moves to discriminate against them. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a former government employee for the state of Ohio who sued her employer after she was passed over for two promotions that were given to gay coworkers instead. The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act doesn't specify between majority and minority groups, and that the burden of discrimination applies to all groups equally. 'The court essentially decided that discrimination is discrimination, and that all concerns around such should be taken seriously. And that means there being no higher burden, as a matter of law, to show it,' says Nonnie Shivers, employment and labor attorney and managing shareholder at firm Ogletree Deakins. The court ruled as expected, but legal experts say the decision will have major ramifications across the employment sphere, and will likely lead to an uptick in reverse discrimination cases, in which a member of a majority group sues over perceived prejudice. 'We should expect to see this trend continue, and see an uptick in these so-called reverse discrimination claims brought by men who are not members of historically disadvantaged groups,' Michael Steinberg, a labor and employment attorney at firm Seyfarth Shaw, tells Fortune. 'Now they'll be armed with the Ames case, which confirms that the same framework for discrimination applies to anyone.' The court's decision comes as diversity, equity and inclusion practices in corporate America are under attack. Over the past two years, many companies have rolled back their DEI practices following the Supreme Court's decision to ban affirmative action in colleges and universities. Although that decision did not apply to companies, it proved to be an inflection point around cultural attitudes towards DEI, and led to ripple effects in the working world. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has taken aim at DEI in the workplace through a series of executive orders. Those moves have forced companies to reexamine their policies and decide whether or not they will stand by their DEI programs, change them in significant ways, or simply alter them in small ways to stay out of political crosshairs. Some Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, specifically cited DEI in their decisions. Thomas wrote that employers in America have been ''obsessed'' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans,' and have 'overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.''It's not surprising, but it's confirmation that at least two of the justices on the Supreme Court are hostile to DEI,' says David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University, tells Fortune. 'I don't think there's been another case where they've actually put in writing, and these concurrences are sometimes used as breadcrumbs to encourage potential plaintiffs to see shifts in the wind and then follow them right to bring future claims. This story was originally featured on
Reuters
2 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
US law firm Seyfarth to exit Shanghai in latest China market retreat
June 5 (Reuters) - Law firm Seyfarth Shaw is planning to close its Shanghai office later this year, as major U.S. law firms continue to reduce their footprints in the Chinese legal market. The Chicago-founded firm, which has about 900 lawyers globally and is known for its labor and employment work, will continue to serve clients in the region by consolidating its presence in Hong Kong, a firm spokesperson said in a statement on Thursday. Seyfarth's website lists six lawyers in Shanghai, where it opened in 2013, and several of the lawyers are co-located in Hong Kong or elsewhere. The team advises clients on cross-border transactions, among other areas such as real estate and employment, according to the website. Large U.S. law firms for more than two years have been shuttering offices in Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong amid muted deal activity, geopolitical tensions and growing pressures on foreign businesses in the country. Earlier this year, firms including Wilson Sonsini, Cleary Gottlieb and Winston & Strawn have said they would close offices in at least one of those locations. The United States and China struck a 90-day deal on May 12 to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since President Donald Trump's January inauguration. Though stocks rallied, the temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship. Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday agreed to further talks between the countries to hash out differences on tariffs. The highly anticipated call came amid accusations between Washington and Beijing in recent weeks over "rare earths" minerals in a dispute that threatens to tear up the fragile truce in the trade war between the two biggest economies.
