News & Analysis as of

Discrimination › Supreme Court of the United States › Employee Rights

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 -
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

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

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

DarrowEverett LLP

Q2 Employment Law Updates: Non-Competes, Religious Accommodation and More

DarrowEverett LLP on

So far, 2023 has been a wild ride for employers, a theme that looks to be continuing into the third quarter of the year. While certain predictions we made during Q1 came true in Q2 (we are looking at you, NLRB), others such...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Supreme Court: Federal Employees Can Sue Over Any Age Discrimination In Employment Decision

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal government employees can sue for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) when age bias taints the decision-making process, not merely when...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Employment Law Notes - July 2018

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

Supreme Court Bars Mandatory Union Dues For Public Employees - Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. ___, 2018 WL 3129785 (2018) - In a highly anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court held that it is a violation of...more

Zelle LLP

That is SO last week - August 2015

Zelle LLP on

Last week, the world mourned Cecil the Lion, and all eyes were on the Minnesota dentist who killed him. The scrutiny of the dentist unearthed, among other things, a sexual harassment complaint lodged against him by a former...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

The Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling & Its Employment Implications

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably are well aware that on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and have their marriages recognized across the...more

Proskauer - Employee Benefits & Executive...

The U.S. Supreme Court Finds a Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage: Implications for Employee Benefit Plan Sponsors

Proskauer - Employee Benefits & Executive... on

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require states to allow same-sex marriage and to...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Recent Supreme Court Cases Raise Bar for Plaintiffs Under Title VII

Foley Hoag LLP on

Two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of its 2012-13 term, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar and Vance v. Ball State University, will significantly alter the landscape of employment...more

14 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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