1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Olamide Fadahunsi

Olamide Fadahunsi

Associate

Overview

Olamide Fadahunsi is an associate in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office and a member of the Labor and Employment group, where she represents employers in both litigation and counseling matters. Olamide regularly conducts mergers and acquisitions due diligence for labor and employment clients in the medical and manufacturing industries.

Prior to joining the firm, Olamide served as a federal law clerk for the Honorable Roderick C. Young in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and as a litigation associate at an international law firm in Washington, D.C. As a federal law clerk, Olamide handled a docket consisting of a variety of criminal and civil matters. During her tenure as a litigation associate, Olamide concentrated her practice on commercial litigation, labor and employment litigation, and white-collar matters.

While in law school, Olamide was the associate submissions and solicitations editor for the Howard Law Journal and an extern at the World Bank Group in their Office of Peer Review Services. Olamide was also a Dean's Fellow for the Howard University School of Law Writing Department. Upon graduating, Olamide received a Certificate in Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Career & Education

|
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
      Federal Law Clerk for Hon. Roderick C. Young
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
      Federal Law Clerk for Hon. Roderick C. Young
    • University of St. Thomas, B.A., cum laude, 2015
    • Howard University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2018
    • University of St. Thomas, B.A., cum laude, 2015
    • Howard University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2018
    • District of Columbia
    • Maryland
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
    • District of Columbia
    • Maryland
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Olamide's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24

Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard

On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. ...

Olamide's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24

Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard

On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. ...