News & Analysis as of

Discrimination › Employer Liability Issues › Title VII

Discrimination is prejudicial treatment related to (or inappropriate consideration of) an individual's actual or perceived membership in a particular class, group or category, such as an individual's... more +
Discrimination is prejudicial treatment related to (or inappropriate consideration of) an individual's actual or perceived membership in a particular class, group or category, such as an individual's race, religion, gender, age, to name a few.  less -
Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: What the Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling Means for Employers and DEI Policies

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

Reshaping the litigation landscape for workplace discrimination claims, last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540 (June 5, 2025), that plaintiffs bringing so-called...more

Butler Snow LLP

Ames v Ohio Department of Youth Services: SCOTUS Removes Additional Requirement in “Reverse Discrimination” Cases

Butler Snow LLP on

In a decision issued June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously found that the burden of proof on a plaintiff asserting an employment discrimination claim is the same, regardless of whether the plaintiff is...more

Gray Reed

Supreme Court Increases Potential Employer Liability Under Title VII’s Discrimination Provisions

Gray Reed on

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, resolving a long-standing split among federal courts and clarifying the evidentiary standard for Title...more

Cozen O'Connor

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

Cozen O'Connor on

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that Title VII’s protections against discrimination do not require majority group individuals (including white people, men, and heterosexuals) to...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Employees to Prove “Reverse Discrimination”

Amundsen Davis LLC on

Hune 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in the case of Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, that “the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a...more

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL on

Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

EEOC Defines Unlawful DEI

CDF Labor Law LLP on

Yesterday, the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published its guidance entitled: What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work....more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Time Was Not on Her Side: 5th Circuit Rules Unpaid Mentor’s Claim of Discrimination Is Untimely

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

In Title VII actions, plaintiffs have a limited amount of time to file a charge of discrimination (or a court can dismiss the case as untimely). In the case of Wells v. Texas Tech University, the timeliness dynamic was...more

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

Recent Executive Orders’ Impact on the EEOC

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL on

Recent executive orders have caused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to abandon litigation and guidance on LGBTQ+ protections and other areas that were priorities during the Biden administration....more

Rumberger | Kirk

From Hamilton To Muldrow: Preparing HR For Title VII Claims Beyond The Firing Table

Rumberger | Kirk on

“The Hamilton decision highlights the need for employers to stay up to date on legal developments. In this one decision, the Fifth Circuit opened the door for claims that just one day earlier were not actionable. Reviewing...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Analyzing President Trump’s Latest Executive Order Titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This Executive Order is a major pivot in federal policy regarding affirmative action...more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

President Trump Revokes Executive Order 11246

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (Order) is one of President Trump’s most recent executive orders. The Order was signed on January 21, 2025. The Order revoked Executive Order EO11246...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Watch Out, Employers: Using Smart Devices in the Workplace May Not Be So Smart

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

What does the EEOC have to do with smart watches, rings, glasses, helmets and other devices that track bodily movement and other data? These devices, known as “wearables,” can track location, brain activity, heart rate, and...more

Goulston & Storrs PC

Political Speech in the Workplace: Legal Considerations for Employers

Goulston & Storrs PC on

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, many employers are bracing themselves for a wave of political discussions—and tension—in the workplace and elsewhere. Navigating these inevitable interactions and the...more

Littler

Littler Lightbulb: September Appellate Roundup

Littler on

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments in federal courts of appeal in the last month. Fourth Circuit Rejects ADA Claim of Employee Who Tested Positive for Illegal Drugs...more

Saul Ewing LLP

Amendment to Illinois Human Rights Act Prohibits Discriminatory Use of AI

Saul Ewing LLP on

On August 9, 2024, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed HB 3773, which amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to restrict an employer’s use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in employment practices....more

Miller Nash LLP

Ninth Circuit Holds the Trustee Has Standing, Not the Employee, to Title VII Claims Rooted in the Pre-Bankruptcy Past

Miller Nash LLP on

The Ninth Circuit’s May 30, 2024 decision in Bercy v. City of Phoenix precludes employees from bringing Title VII employment claims that the employee could have brought before filing for personal bankruptcy. These claims...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Employment Claims

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more

FordHarrison

It’s about Tyne to Try Something New: The Burden of the Standard of Proof

FordHarrison on

Executive Summary - In January, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision that likely will impact employers’ litigation strategies in discrimination cases. In Tynes v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, the court...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Workplace Harmony in 2024: Navigating the EEOC’s Latest Harassment Guidelines

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released long-awaited Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, No. 915.064. The EEOC also published a “Summary of Key Provisions,” FAQs for employees, and a...more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Employers Beware: Title VII Now Allows Employees to More Easily Challenge Your Decision to Transfer or Reassign Them

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Navigating the Rock & the Hard Place: Conflicting Federal and State Mandates for LGBTQ Employees

Foley & Lardner LLP on

“The rock and the hard place.” How often do employers find themselves here? If employers have LGBTQ employees in certain states, they are now bumping up against the “rock” of federal laws, like Title VII and Title IX, and the...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Get with the Pronoun: Eleventh Circuit Rules Pervasive Misgendering Is Harassment

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

No More Adjectives… Just Some Harm: Supreme Rules on Title VII Job Transfer Threshold

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Supreme Court Holds That Employees Need Not Show “Significant” Harm to Support a Title VII Discrimination Claim Based on a Job...

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a lateral job transfer can – in certain circumstances – be an illegal adverse action and support a claim for a lawsuit for unlawful discrimination. This...more

283 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 12
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide