News & Analysis as of

Discrimination › Employment Litigation

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 -
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Mandatory referral to EAP may be "adverse action," court says

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

"Some harm" is all it takes. A federal appeals court found this week that requiring an employee to enter an Employee Assistance Program may be an “adverse employment action” under the federal anti-discrimination laws....more

Verrill

Orabona v. Santander: The Importance of ERISA Status for Severance Plans

Verrill on

Severance plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) must satisfy certain compliance requirements, but federal law affords employers significant advantages in the event a...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Recent Settlement Latest in Developing Trend in Reverse Discrimination Cases

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

It was announced on July 7 that IBM had resolved a former consultant’s ​“reverse” discrimination claim for an undisclosed sum, closing the door on his Title VII race and sex discrimination lawsuit. This settlement is yet...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

AI-Driven Employment Litigation Post-Trump AI EO’s

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints on

In an era where President Trump has revoked existing federal AI policies and directives and federal agencies have followed suit, several state legislatures and courts are weighing in to account for potential AI-enabled bias...more

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Risques à surveiller en matière de congédiement déguisé

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP on

Les risques d’allégations de congédiement déguisé demeurent une préoccupation importante pour les employeurs canadiens, en particulier dans le contexte de changements opérationnels. Les tribunaux considèrent qu’un...more

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

BakerHostetler

The Supreme Court ‘Ames’ to Clarify that All Discrimination Claims Must Be Treated Equally

BakerHostetler on

As the summer comes into full swing and many employees take time off to enjoy summer vacation, the same cannot be said for employers. It has been no secret that private sector diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs...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

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

At-Will Doctrine Still Applies to Disciplinary Action Following Employer Investigations

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

Here is a common scenario faced by human resources professionals: An employee complains about unprofessional and bullying behavior by a coworker. After interviewing the two employees and other workers, the employer cannot...more

K&L Gates LLP

Supreme Court Invalidates "Background Circumstances" Rule in Title VII Cases

K&L Gates LLP on

On 5 June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that, in order to establish a Title VII claim, a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority group” is not required to show “background...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

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

BREAKING: SCOTUS overrules higher standard for majority group asserting bias claims

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

On June 5th the U.S. Supreme Court held that majority-group plaintiffs do not have to show special “background circumstances” to support a Title VII discrimination claim. ...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Better Late Than Never? Not in the 5th Circuit: Delayed Action on Accommodation May Be ADA Violation

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Earlier this month, in Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer’s delayed accommodation of an employee’s disability could amount to a failure to accommodate under...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Risk Management in the Modern Era of Workplace Generative AI

McDermott Will & Schulte on

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is becoming more prevalent in the workplace, including as a tool for human resources (HR) leaders to use in their employment practices. At the same time, close to a dozen states have...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

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

Return to Office Mandates: Best Practices and Minimizing Litigation Risks

Farella Braun + Martel LLP on

The transition to in-person work after years of permitting and promoting remote work presents unique challenges for nonprofit organizations. While returning to the office (RTO) can enhance collaboration and workplace culture,...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Litigate or Arbitrate? Sixth Circuit Decision Looks at Timing of Sexual Harassment Claim

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Can you compel arbitration with an employee who is alleging sexual harassment? You may recall that in 2022, Congress enacted the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), which precludes...more

Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP

Action Required for NY State Employers Under New York’s Reproductive Health Bias Law (the “Act”)

Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP on

New York State’s Reproductive Health Bias Law (the “Act”) has been reinstated following a Second Circuit ruling. The Act, found in Section 203-e of New York State’s Labor Law, prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s...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

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Working Mothers: Workplace Travel Requirements Do Not Automatically Amount to Indirect Discrimination

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP on

Ms Perkins (the Claimant) was employed as head of Enforcement Local Taxation in the Helmshore office of MH Ltd’s enforcement company (the Company). The Company restructured its enforcement services so that work in Darlington,...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism Over Higher Burden in Majority Discrimination Cases

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral arguments in a case to determine whether employees who are part of a majority group must meet a higher standard to prove discrimination....more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Reverse Discrimination Standard

Husch Blackwell LLP on

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that challenges the heightened evidentiary burden imposed on majority-group plaintiffs in Title VII...more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Supreme Court Signals it Will Reject Heightened Burden for Majority Group Plaintiffs in “Reverse Discrimination” Employment Claims

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court and all three counsel appearing before it in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, appeared to walk away in “radical agreement” — as noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch — that a...more

262 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 11
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