News & Analysis as of

Discrimination › Supreme Court of the United States

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 -
Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Clarifying Standards for “Reverse” Discrimination, Coupled with Other Recent Changes (see Muldrow), could have Real Implications...

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

Did the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Serv., 145 S.Ct. 1540 (2025), decided in June of this year, make it easier for employees to bring discrimination lawsuits against their employers? The...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

SuperVision - Labor & Employment Law Insights, Issue 2, August 2025

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

Welcome to our latest issue of SuperVision. In this edition, we cover the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding reverse discrimination, navigating lawful DEI approaches, recent trends in unionizing efforts, and the new...more

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

Gould + Ratner LLP

SCOTUS: ADA Doesn’t Extend to Retired Employees

Gould + Ratner LLP on

The United States Supreme Court has determined that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) does not extend to discrimination claims from retired employees. In an 8–1 decision issued on June 20, 2025, the Court held that...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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - June 23, 2025

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued six decisions: Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 24-7: This case addresses fuel producers’ Article III standing to...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

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

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Circuit Split on Certifying Classes with Uninjured Class Members

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed as improvidently granted the writ of certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Luke Davis, No. 22-55873, which raised whether a federal court may certify a...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

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

Benesch

Supreme Court Appears Poised to Do Away With Additional Burdens on Reverse-Discrimination Plaintiffs

Benesch on

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, which questioned whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly decided that a heterosexual plaintiff should have...more

Bricker Graydon LLP

U.S. Department of Education releases FAQ for February 14th Dear Colleague Letter

Bricker Graydon LLP on

On March 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) released a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document in connection with the February 14 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL). This document aims to clarify how...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

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

5th Circuit grants stay over 2022 changes to CFPB’s examination manual

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on

On February 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the CFPB’s unopposed request to stay a pending appeal for 90 days to give the acting director, Russell Vought, time to review the CFPB’s position in this...more

FordHarrison

Pam Bondi's Memo to DOJ on DEI: What it Means for Private Employers

FordHarrison on

On February 5, 2025, newly confirmed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo to all U.S. Department of Justice Departments targeting private employers’ use of DEI initiatives.  The memo is titled “Ending Illegal DEI and...more

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP

Black History Month: Remembering the NJ-Born Physician Who Became the First Black Lawyer Admitted to Practice before the Supreme...

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP on

Born in Elsinborough Township in Salem County, New Jersey on October 13, 1825, John S. Rock was a person with amazing talents. After years of working as a physician, for health reasons he turned to the practice of law and in...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Attorney General Orders Investigation of Federally Funded Private Sector Institutions for Potential Civil Rights Violations

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

On February 5, 2025, the Office of the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all Department of Justice (DOJ) employees titled “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences,” mandating investigation of...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

297 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