From the U.S. Supreme Court to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, courts have issued rulings that clarify — and in some cases, reshape — key aspects of labor and employment law.
Supreme Court Decisions
Supreme Court Overturns Reverse Discrimination Rule
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that members of a majority group do not face a higher legal burden when alleging workplace discrimination. Previously, a heightened standard for discrimination was applied in some appellate circuits (including the Sixth Circuit) for discrimination claims brought by members of a majority group.
The Court rejected this framework and held that Title VII does not impose a more demanding standard for majority group members. The Court emphasized that the protections of Title VII protects all individuals equally, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group.
Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions
Trump v. CASA Inc.
In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that federal courts likely lack the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.
Nationwide injunctions have been a source of controversy in recent years. Federal district courts have issued nationwide injunctions related to a range of federal policies, including:
- The Federal Trade Commission’s ban on non-compete agreements;
- The Department of Labor’s attempt to increase the salary threshold for exempt employees;
- Modifications to union election procedures; and
- Regulations concerning gender identity protections.
Going forward, injunctions will be limited to the parties involved in the litigation.
SCOTUS Rules Retired Employee Cannot Sue Under ADA
Stanley v. City of Sanford Florida
On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that a retired employee is not a “qualified individual” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The City of Sanford provided health insurance benefits for retirees up to the age of 65 if the retiree had 25 years of service or retired early due to disability. In 2003, the City changed the policy so that employees who retired early due to disability would only continue receiving insurance for up to 24 months.
A retired employee impacted by the policy change argued that the City’s 2003 policy violated the ADA by discriminating against those who retire early based on disability. The Court held that the ADA prohibits discrimination against “qualified individuals.” A “qualified individual” is someone who can perform the “essential functions” of the position with or without accommodations. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that Title I of the ADA applies to current employees and applicants—not retirees.
Sixth Circuit Decisions
Sixth Circuit Limits Forced Arbitration in Harassment Case
Memmer v. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC
In March 2022, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) was signed into law, prohibiting employers from requiring employees alleging sexual assault or sexual harassment claims to resolve those claims through arbitration. Under the EFAA, individuals alleging such claims may choose to pursue litigation in court, even if they previously agreed to arbitration through a signed agreement. The law applies to claims or disputes that accrue or arise on or after March 2022.
The Sixth Circuit determined that the lower court had not accurately assessed when the dispute in question actually arose and therefore remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court explained that a dispute typically arises after a claim accrues—for example, when a demand letter is sent, an administrative charge is filed, when arbitration is requested. Thus, a dispute could arise after March 2022 even if the underlying conduct occurred before that date, meaning the EFAA may apply to pre-March 2022 conduct under such circumstances.
Employers should understand that a “dispute” under the EFAA is a factual question and may be considered to arise long after the alleged conduct. Even if alleged conduct occurred before the EFAA’s effective date, if the dispute wasn’t formally recognized or acted on until after that date, the EFAA may still apply.
Sixth Circuit Decision Highlights Importance of Record Keeping
Kean v. Brinker International, Inc.
In evaluating an age discrimination claim, the Sixth Circuit held that an employer could not rely on an unauthenticated internal report to justify the adverse employment action at issue. The Court found that the report was compiled using emails and communications that the employer acknowledged had been lost or deleted due to gross negligence, significantly undermining the report’s credibility and admissibility. Without that documentation, the employer was left without a substantiated basis for its decision.
This case underscores the importance of maintaining proper documentation and preserving all supporting evidence related to employment decisions. Employers should implement sound recordkeeping practices, as poor recordkeeping (whether through negligence or oversight) can severely weaken an employer’s ability to defend against claims in litigation.
Sixth Circuit Clarifies FLSA Salary Exemption
Pickens v. Hamilton-Ryker IT Sols., LLC
The Sixth Circuit recently clarified that to qualify as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an employee’s salary must guarantee a predetermined amount of pay regardless of the number of hours worked. Under the FLSA, employees are entitled to time-and-a-half pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, unless they meet an exemption. One such exemption, the “highly compensated employee” exemption, applies only if the employee receives total annual compensation of at least $107,432, including a minimum weekly salary or fee basis of $684.
The Court rejected the idea that an employer could evade overtime obligations by offering employees a base weekly “salary” that did not truly reflect the full compensation for an entire workweek. It emphasized that it is not enough to guarantee employees a fixed weekly amount; rather, the weekly payment must be fundamental to the compensation structure and not merely incidental. In other words, the workweek must serve as the primary basis around which the salary is calculated.
To minimize risk, employers should carefully review their pay structures to ensure that any guaranteed salaries meet the requirements of the FLSA. Compensation that appears to be hourly or insufficiently tied to a standard full workweek may disqualify employees from overtime exemptions, triggering significant liability.
