In this podcast recorded at our recent Corporate Labor and Employment Counsel Exclusive® seminar, Tae Phillips (shareholder, Birmingham), Jim Paul (shareholder, St. Louis/Tampa), and Scott Kelly (shareholder, Birmingham) continue their discussion of the EEOC’s evolving enforcement priorities—with a particular focus on gender identity issues. Scott (who chairs the firm’s Workforce
Articles Discussing Sex And Gender Discrimination Under Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964
Title IX Investigations and Interviewing Children Workplace Wake-Up with Jen Shaw
In this episode, Jen and fellow Shaw Law Group attorney and Title IX expert Katherine Guilford discuss Title IX investigations and the best practices for…
Federal Court Narrows but Does Not End Debate Over Transgender Athletes and Title IX in College Sports
Whether and how transgender women may participate in women’s collegiate sports remains one of the most closely watched issues in the country. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia’s September 2025 decision in Gaines v. National Collegiate Athletic Association—a case brought by former University of Kentucky swimmer
Confirmation of Brittany Panuccio Restores the EEOC Quorum: Changes To The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Regulations Coming Soon
On October 7, 2025, the Senate confirmed President Trump’s nomination of Brittany Panuccio as the third Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioner giving the EEOC the quorum needed to make significant policy changes such as amending or adopting new regulations and guidance.
The EEOC has been patiently waiting until the
Title IX Investigations and Interviewing Children – Workplace Wake-Up with Jen Shaw
In this episode, Jen and fellow Shaw Law Group attorney and Title IX expert Katherine Guilford discuss Title IX investigations and the best practices for interviewing students in K-12 schools.
Eleventh Circuit Says Health Plan’s Gender-Affirming Surgery Exclusion Not Discriminatory on Its Face
On September 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled that a county health insurance plan’s exclusion denying coverage for gender-affirming surgery did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on its face. The ruling overturned a district court’s
Denial of Gender-Affirming Care Does Not Qualify as Sex Discrimination, Eleventh Circuit Holds
Denial of Gender-Affirming Care Does Not Qualify as Sex Discrimination, Eleventh Circuit Holds
On September 9, 2025, in Anna Lange v. Houston County, Georgia, et. al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery was not discriminatory.
tgelbman@littler.com Fri, 09/12/2025
U.S. Olympic Committee’s New Transgender Athlete Ban Highlights Changing Policy Landscape
The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) recently banned transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports, becoming the latest institution to take such action following President Donald Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14201, titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” and a wave of state laws seeking to ban transgender athletes
Numerous Appeals Challenge House Settlement
In the wake of the landmark June 6, 2025, House v. NCAA settlement, several groups have initiated appeals challenging the Settlement’s terms, asserting Title IX, antitrust, and other related issues.
Title IX and Antitrust Challenges
Three groups of female student-athletes appealed the district court-approved Settlement on grounds that the Settlement violates
United States v. Skrmetti: U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Tennessee Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
On June 18, 2025, in United States v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (the “Bill”), which bans gender-affirming medical treatments, such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries, for minors. In a 6-3 decision, the Court concluded that the Bill survives the rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and clarified that it does not constitute impermissible sex discrimination, as further detailed below. This article primarily focuses on the significance of this ruling to employers who offer health and welfare plans; however, its ripple effects extend to medical treatment in other aspects as well, which is beyond the scope of this article.
Supreme Court Decision Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Hits 10-Year Anniversary
Ten years have passed since the Supreme Court of the United States granted all same-sex couples the right to marry and have their marriages recognized nationwide. In the decade since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, protections for LGBTQ+ employees in the workplace continue to evolve, including the Supreme Court’s subsequent
Congressional Democrats Accuse the EEOC Accused of Undermining Trans and Nonbinary Protections
Earlier this month, a coalition of 70 U.S. House Democrats led by Reps. Mark Takano, Bobby Scott, and Suzanne Bonamici accused Andrea Lucas—the current Acting Chair of the EEOC—of downgrading and dismissing discrimination claims based
Celebrating Pride Month: Intersectionality and the Power of Living Authentically
Celebrating Pride Month: Intersectionality and the Power of Living Authentically
In this Littler Celebrates episode honoring Pride Month, Shareholders Trevor Hardy and Jennifer Orr share their personal journeys of coming out – both as LGBTQ+ and as individuals with disabilities. They reflect on how these intersecting identities have shaped their
Texas Federal Court Vacates Portions of EEOC’s 2024 Title VII Guidance on Gender Identity
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently issued a ruling vacating the “gender-identity related portions” of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) 2024 Guidance interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s scope and coverage as it relates to the LGBTQ+ community.
Title VII: What Constitutes Discrimination on the Basis of Sex?
On May 15, 2025, the district court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order vacating the gender-identity portions of the EEOC’s 2024 Enforcement Guidance. In the order, District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk stated that all language defining “sex” under Title VII to include “sexual orientation” and/or “gender identity” was contrary to law and therefore vacated.