News & Analysis as of

Employees Sex Discrimination Title VII

Ballard Spahr LLP

Reverse Discrimination Lawsuits Are So Back

Ballard Spahr LLP on

On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more

Quarles & Brady LLP

Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Reverse Discrimination Suits Under Title VII

Quarles & Brady LLP on

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court last Thursday held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes no additional requirements on majority-group...more

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

SCOTUS Unanimously Rejects Heightened Burden for Majority-Group Discrimination Claims

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

Bracewell LLP

Employees in the “Majority” Do Not Have Higher Burden When Proving Discrimination Says Unanimous Supreme Court

Bracewell LLP on

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

Payne & Fears

SCOTUS Eases the Standard for Reverse Discrimination Claims Under Title VII

Payne & Fears on

Today, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously held that in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Prima Facie “Background Circumstances” Test for Majority Group Plaintiffs

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

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

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Can you take action against an employee for being a pain in the you-know-what?

At least one court says yes. True confession: When I was a little future lawyer, I was sometimes a pain. (So, Robin, you’re saying your personality hasn't changed in all these years?) When I was being especially “high...more

Polsinelli

EEOC Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination in the Workplace

Polsinelli on

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

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...

Security Engineers, Inc. to Pay $1.6 Million in EEOC Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

Federal Agency Charged Security Company with Engaging in Systemic Sex Discrimination in Hiring and Assignments - BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Security Engineers, Inc., a contract security solutions provider headquartered in...more

Berkshire

EEOC Updates Under The New Administration

Berkshire on

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been busy since President Trump took office on January 20, 2025. On January 21st, 2025, the President appointed Andrea Lucas as Acting Chair of the EEOC. She has served...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

President Trump’s Executive Order Eradicates 'Gender Ideology' from Federal Government and Seeks to Dismantle Federal Transgender...

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The Trump Administration’s new Executive Order on “gender ideology extremism” signals a dramatic shift in federal policy that will impact workplace policies, benefits, and compliance obligations relating to transgender...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

11th Circuit Speaks: No Implied Right of Action for Employees Under Title IX for Sex Discrimination

The 11th Circuit has spoken on a topic with divergent views among the circuits – finding that Title IX does not provide an implied right of action for sex discrimination. In so doing, it affirmed summary judgment for the...more

Carlton Fields

Eleventh Circuit Narrows Scope of Employee Title IX Claims

Carlton Fields on

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 does not provide an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment. This decision deepens an...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

Caveat Employer: An Employee’s Off-Duty Social Media Posts Can Constitute Workplace Harassment

As the workplace continues to take a new shape, the distinction between “workplace conduct” and “off duty” conduct continues to fade for many.  After a recent Ninth Circuit ruling, employers must be more vigilant than ever in...more

Perkins Coie

June Tip of the Month: Updated EEOC Guidance Enhances Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Protections

Perkins Coie on

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its new Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the Guidance), the first update to its Guidance in over 20 years. Among the many...more

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

The EEOC Unveils Final Version of Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace

On April 29, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after nearly seven years of effort, released updated guidance concerning harassment in the workplace. The updated guidance reflects three key developments...more

Littler

Eleventh Circuit: McDonnell Douglas Is Not Be-All and End-All for Title VII Discrimination Claims

Littler on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh has spoken, and employers that once relied exclusively on McDonnell Douglas might need to rethink their litigation strategy in employment-discrimination cases. On December 12,...more

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

Supreme Court Poised to Eliminate Title VII Material Harm Requirement

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a key case involving the definition of an “adverse employment action” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, the Court...more

Gray Reed

Appeals Court Opens Door to More Discrimination Claims

Gray Reed on

On August 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, abandoned a decades-old interpretation that discrimination must be related to an “ultimate employment...more

Littler

Littler Lightbulb – August Employment Appellate Roundup

Littler on

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments in the federal courts of appeal in the last month. Fifth Circuit Expands Scope of Actionable Claims Under Title VII....more

Marshall Dennehey

Third Circuit Reaffirms High Bar for Showing ‘Severe and Pervasive’ Harassment for Hostile Work Environment Claims Under Title VII

Marshall Dennehey on

A nurse practitioner sued her employer alleging, inter alia, a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that...more

Freeman Law

The Righteous Stand Bold Like a Lion | Bostock, Religious Organization Employers, and Title VII

Freeman Law on

This Insights blog addresses the aftermath of the monumental U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020) and the ongoing collision of the right to religious freedom enjoyed by...more

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...

SmartTalent Sued by EEOC for Sex Discrimination

Federal Agency Seeks Workers Impacted by Staffing Agency’s Refusal to Place Females Due to Client Preferences - SEATTLE — Gig Harbor, Washington-based staffing agency SmartTalent violated federal law by repeatedly refusing...more

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

Developments in the Law on Protections for LGBTQ+ Employees

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County,140 S. Ct. 1731, 1754 (2020) that expanded the prohibition against sex discrimination under Title VII (“Title VII”) of the Civil Rights Act to include discrimination on...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Plaintiff’s “Paramour Preference” Plan Panned: 9th Circuit Finds Romantic Relationship Not Enough to Show Discrimination Against...

In another chapter in litigation alliteration, in Maner v. Dignity Health, f/k/a Catholic Healthcare West, the Ninth Circuit held that a male employee’s theory that his supervisor’s long-term romantic relationship with a...more

28 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide