A Deep Dive into HUD's New Guidance on AI-Driven Targeted Advertising — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Fair Lending 101 for Debt Collectors - The Consumer Finance Podcast
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
#WorkforceWednesday: COVID-19 Vaccination Policies, Worker Organizing Task Force, Whistleblowing Increases - Employment Law This Week®
Illegal or ill-mannered? Title VII meets Ms. Manners
Pregnancy In the Workplace...Hot Off the Press
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally prohibits covered employers from taking adverse actions against employees on the basis of race, sex, and other protected categories. Employee discipline is often the subject...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more
In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more
On June 5, 2025, in a 9-0 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that members of a “majority group” do not have to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, overruling the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule in employment discrimination cases. The background circumstances rule required members of a...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., the U.S. Supreme Court recently settled a circuit split and held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which was applied only to plaintiffs from majority...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, ruling that the “background circumstances” test—which applies a heighted...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, decisively rejecting the so-called “background circumstances” rule that required majority-group...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that the standard for establishing a Title VII claim is the same for all individuals, regardless of whether...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, concluding that courts cannot require members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, the Supreme Court eliminated the higher standard majority-group plaintiffs had to meet in Title VII discrimination cases. Traditionally, a Title VII plaintiff must show they are a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 5 rendered an opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025).), resolving a circuit split regarding the applicable standard...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of petitioner, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who commenced a reverse discrimination case against her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth...more
In a case filed by a heterosexual woman claiming she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that she should not be required to meet a higher standard to prove...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously ruled that a plaintiff bringing an action for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is entitled to...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vacated a Sixth Circuit decision imposing an additional evidentiary hurdle on "majority-group" plaintiffs (e.g., Caucasian, male,...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting the “background circumstances” requirement multiple circuit courts of appeals have applied to Title...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the dismissal of a heterosexual woman’s Title VII claims, concluding that she was improperly subjected to a heightened prima facie standard that required her to show...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But does that protection apply equally to white, male, or...more
On March 20, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued two key pieces of guidance: What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work and What You Should Know About DEI-Related...more
On March 17, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms, requesting information about their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) related employment...more
In Lui v. DeJoy, the Ninth Circuit held that a woman of Chinese ethnicity’s demotion, when coupled with a white male replacing her position, gave rise to an inference of discrimination. The employer’s investigation into the...more
It is rarely a good idea to ignore an agency request or summons, to thumb your nose at agency authority, or to simply tell them to go pound sand. There have been a variety of issues in agencies where failure to cooperate...more
The plaintiffs and the federal government seek a 90-day stay in Mid-America Milling Company v. United States Department of Transportation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00072, “to permit [the federal government] the opportunity to...more
Plaintiffs need not allege discrimination with respect to an “ultimate employment decision” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to survive a motion to dismiss, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held,...more