Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Title VII to Protect LGBTQ Community

Client Alert
June 15, 2020

It is not every day that the United States Supreme Court issues a decision that dramatically changes the workplace, but it happened this week. In a landmark decision captioned as Bostock v. Clayton County, issued by the Court on June 15th, the Court ruled that federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex” will now include protections for individuals on the basis of sexual orientation, transgender, and gender identity.

On its face, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in pertinent part, that it is an “unlawful employment practice for an employer” to discriminate against an individual “because of such individual’s race, color, sex, or national origin” (emphasis added).

In the decades since its passing, courts across the country have grappled with the meaning of “sex” within the text of Title VII and the extent of its coverage; however, today, the Court clarified that “sex” includes sexual orientation, transgender, and gender identity, extending employment protections to these protected classes of people.

Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in which he writes:

In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires [or discriminates against] an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.

This is a very important decision for all employers in America to recognize and follow as it will surely lead to liability and lawsuits for those employers that choose to ignore it. Practically, this decision prohibits an employer from considering an employee’s sexual orientation, transgender, or gender identification when making decisions concerning hiring, discipline, pay rate, job duties, and termination. As a result, employers should take this ruling as an opportunity to update employee handbooks and ensure provisions reflect the newly identified protected classes. As an additional measure, employers should use this decision as an opportunity to conduct re-trainings for all employees to ensure company-wide compliance with anti-discrimination and harassment policies, including the recent protections afforded to the LGBTQ community. Finally, this decision should spark employers to consider purchasing or reviewing their current Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) plan to ensure protection in the event of claims arising out of this decision.

Bryan Meek is a member of Brennan, Manna & Diamond’s Employment & Labor team and is available to assist you with responding to requests for information and/or appealing unfavorable unemployment decisions. Bryan can be reached at 330.253.5586, or bmeek@bmdllc.com. 

Supreme Courtlandmark decisionBostock v. Clayton Countydiscrimination on basis of sexprotections for individuals on basis of sexual orientationtransgendergender identityTitle VIIProtecting LGBTQ Communityemployersliability lawsuitsexual orientationemployee handbookDiscrimination
Client Alert

Invisible Algorithms: The Hidden Role of Artificial Intelligence in USCIS Immigration Processing

February 10, 2026The Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that artificial intelligence and machine learning tools are now integrated into numerous operational functions within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). These tools are described as mechanisms to improve efficiency, reduce backlogs, and assist officers in managing an unprecedented volume of applications. DHS emphasizes that human adjudicators retain decision-making authority and that AI systems do not independently grant or deny immigration benefits. Find out how AI affects the U.S. immigration process.Client Alert

OAAPN | Year In Review: 2026 Ohio Board of Nursing and Ohio Law Rules

February 9, 2026Find out key changes to Ohio law and the Ohio Board of Nursing rules that have directly impacted APRN practice over the past year, including Psychiatric Inpatient Documents, Intimate Examinations, Signature Authority, Duties Related to Fetal Death, Retail IV Therapy Clinics, Release from Permanent Restrictions, Disciplinary Action, Course on Drugs and Prescriptive Authority, Overdose Reversal Drugs, Office Based Opioid Treatment, Withdrawal Management for Substance Use Disorder, Safe Haven Program, and more.Client Alert

Ohio House Bill 537: Proposed Regulations for Midwives and Birthing Centers

January 28, 2026House Bill 537, introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives, proposes a comprehensive regulatory framework for certified nurse-midwives, certified midwives, licensed midwives, and traditional midwives. The legislation would clarify scope of practice, establish licensure standards, and impose new requirements for freestanding birthing centers and home births. Healthcare providers and facilities should be aware of the proposed changes and their potential operational impact.Client Alert

Proposed Health Information Privacy Reform Act Expands Protections Beyond HIPAA

January 26, 2026The Health Information Privacy Reform Act (HIPRA) seeks to extend privacy protections to health data not covered under HIPAA, including data collected by apps and wearables. HIPRA introduces broader definitions of protected health information, strengthens privacy and security requirements, establishes patient notification rights, and sets national de-identification standards. Companies processing health data should monitor developments to ensure compliance.Client Alert

Medicare Updates on Skin Substitutes: LCDs Withdrawn, Payment Changes Take Effect

January 23, 2026Medicare’s planned Final Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) for skin substitutes were withdrawn in late December 2025, meaning previous coverage rules remain in effect. The 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule introduces a single payment rate of approximately $127.14 for these products. Providers should review implications for diabetic foot and venous leg ulcer treatments.
Older posts
Newer posts