Compliance Stuff

As businesses integrate AI tools into operations, a spike in related litigation is no surprise, especially due to the lack of formal legal precedent. Last month, a federal court in the Northern District of California provided some much-needed guidance when it granted a motion to preliminarily certify a collective in a lawsuit alleging that an AI-based applicant screening system discriminated against individuals aged 40 and older. In  Mobley v. Workday, Inc. ,  the plaintiffs claimed they received hundreds of rejections without interviews after applying for jobs through Workday—a provider of human resource management software, including platforms connecting employers with job applicants. According to the plaintiffs, Workday’s AI-driven applicant f iltering algorithm disproportionately disqualified individuals over 40 from employment opportunities. Plaintiffs sought preliminary certification of a nationwide collective under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), propo...

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in  Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services , rejecting a longstanding rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts that imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs bringing claims for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the Court held that such plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate “background circumstances” to establish a  prima facie  case of discrimination under the  McDonnell Douglas  framework. In doing so, the Court resolved a circuit split and reaffirmed that Title VII’s protections apply uniformly to “any individual,” regardless of demographic status. Background: Sixth Circuit’s “Background Circumstances” Rule Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was denied a promotion and demoted, with her previous position filled by a gay man. She alleged that the...

  On July 1, 2025, new increased minimum wage rates will go into effect in many California cities and countie s. Local governments have looked to offset the effects of inflation and have decided to use minimum wage ordinances to address the increased cost of living in many localities within the state. As a result, many jurisdictions in California have established higher minimum wages than California’s current minimum wage rate of $16.50/hour. These municipalities include, but are not limited to: Alameda, Belmont, Berkeley, Burlingame, Cupertino, Daly City, East Palo Alto, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Foster City, Fremont, Half Moon Bay, Los Altos, Los Angeles (city and county), Malibu, Menlo Park, Milpitas, Mountain View, Novato, Oakland, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Petaluma, San Carlos, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Leandro, San Mateo (city and county), Santa Clara, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Sonoma, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, and West Hollywood.   Generally, employers...

The day after her nomination was confirmed last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a  memorandum  to all Department of Justice employees on Wednesday, February 5th, stating that the USDOJ’s Civil Rights Division will begin investigating, prosecuting and penalizing illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs and activities in the private sector (as well as in educational institutions that receive federal funds) that are based on race or gender.   Bondi states that this action is necessary to enforce federal civil rights laws and to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences . She did not indicate what would be considered illegal and what would not, other than to state that educational, cultural, or historical observances such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day or similar events that celebrate diversity, recognize historical contributions, and promote awareness without engaging in exc...