Dear Americans with Disabilities Act,

How time flies -- you're already 25 years old! I have seen many lovely tributes to you this week, and a couple of my favorites are here and here. I hope you don't mind one more from me.

When President George H.W. Bush signed you into law in 1990, I had been practicing employment law for less than two years, so I feel like you and I grew up together.

I ...

We went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and all I got was this lousy $45K?

(Better than a lousy t-shirt, I guess.)

Law360 reports that, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the high-profile religious discrimination and accommodation case, Abercrombie has agreed to pay Samantha Elauf $25,670.53 in damages and $18,983.03 ...

Maybe not that much, depending on where you are and how "proactive" you've already been before now.

Seriously, I don't think Friday's Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will be that big a deal for most employers. The Supreme Court already decided in 2013 that the federal definition of "spouse" included same-sex spouses (assuming the marriage was legally valid where ...

I haven't had a chance to analyze yesterday's Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, so meanwhile here is a link to a "plain English" summary of the decision, and here is a link to the decision. Both from the outstanding SCOTUSblog.

We will have more on this in the not-too-distant future. Don't go away!

The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, hot off the press, is 103 pages long, but here it is. Some instant analysis:

*The due process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution compel states to recognize same-sex marriages.

*The First Amendment will continue to protect those who object to same-sex marriage for religious reasons.

The decision was 5-4 ...

This is a first. I don't think I've ever agreed with Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the same time. What's the world coming to?

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie means this: if an employment decision is motivated by religion - even if the employer does not actually know the religious need of the individual - then the employer may be liable ...

Are harassment and retaliation lawsuits all going to the jury now? Are employers doomed? Are the plaintiffs' lawyers popping the champagne corks? Is the EEOC dancing for joy?

The employment law world is abuzz about last week's racial harassment/retaliation decision from my own U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (Many thanks to an attorney friend who emailed a ...

Some employers really, really hate to fire employees. That doesn't mean they won't do it - but they'll do just about anything to avoid calling it what it is.

A few months ago, I wrote about "bogus RIFs" - when an employer tries to avoid "firing" an employee by claiming it's really a "reduction in force."

There's another kind of "alternative" separation called a constructive discharge.

The SCOTUSblog has a live blog of the oral argument today at the U.S. Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges, as well as links to the audio . . . just in case you're interested.

What do employers need to know about the Supreme Court's pregnancy accommodation decision last week in Young v. United Parcel Service?

For the "somewhat-scholarly" version (also known as the "tl:dr"* version), go here.

*"Too long; didn't read"

For the "one minute 14 second" version, go here.

But for the "just right" version, stay where you are for some FAQs, Goldilocks!

So, now ...