News & Analysis as of

Employer Liability Issues › Employment Litigation › Title VII

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

When is an employer liable for harassment by customers? You may be relieved.

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

When is an employer legally responsible for harassment of its employee by one of its customers? A recent court decision may be a relief for employers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Most courts ruling on the...more

Vedder Price

Sixth Circuit Splits with EEOC and Other Circuits as to Employer Liability for Harassment by Non-Employees Under Title VII

Vedder Price on

In Bivens v. Zep, Inc., No. 24-2109 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025), the Sixth Circuit split with the EEOC and most U.S. Courts of Appeals as to when an employer may be liable under Title VII for harassment by a non-agent (e.g.,...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

If You See Something, Do You Fix It If It Isn’t Your Employee? 6th Circuit Applies Higher Standard to Non-Employee Harassment Case

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

An employee tells you a customer just harassed them — what should you do? In Bivens v. Zep, Inc. the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals charts its own course in addressing employer liability for third-party harassment. The Equal...more

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL on

Most employers understand their obligation to prevent discrimination and harassment at work, and the significant consequences that can come if such treatment is allowed to occur. But what if an employee alleges harassment not...more

Littler

Sixth Circuit Limits Employer Liability for Harassment by Nonemployees

Littler on

On August 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled an employer is not liable for harassment of an employee by a third party unless the employer intended for the harassment to occur. This stark departure...more

Oppenheimer Investigations Group

Workplace Investigations in Litigation: Strategic Value for Both Plaintiffs and Defendants

Oppenheimer Investigations Group on

Workplace investigations are generally conducted outside of a litigation context and involve complaints that are not ultimately litigated. However, inevitably some workplace disputes that are investigated do make it to...more

Fisher Phillips

Another Employer Faces AI Hiring Bias Lawsuit: 10 Actions You Can Take to Prevent AI Litigation

Fisher Phillips on

An unsuccessful job applicant is suing Sirius XM Radio in federal court, claiming the company’s AI-powered hiring tool discriminated against him based on his race. Filed on August 4 in the Eastern District of Michigan, the...more

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

Did the Employer Intend for the Customer to Harass Its Employee? The Sixth Circuit Sets a High Bar

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employer will be liable for a customer’s harassment of an employee only when it intends for such harassment to occur. ...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Sixth Circuit Takes Restricted View of Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

For years, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and multiple federal appellate circuits have agreed on the legal standard for proving liability for sexual or other harassment by a third party such as a vendor or...more

Jaburg Wilk

When Is a Company Your Employer? Understanding the Integrated Enterprise Doctrine Under Title VII

Jaburg Wilk on

Filing a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can be confusing when determining who the employer is. That’s especially true in a complex corporate environment, where...more

Phelps Dunbar

Sixth Circuit Redefines Employer Liability for Client-Based Harassment

Phelps Dunbar on

In an explicit departure from EEOC guidance and other federal court caselaw, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employer can only be liable for a client/customer’s harassment of its...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

Downey Brand LLP

Employers May See an Increase in Title VII Discrimination Claims

Downey Brand LLP on

Recently, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that lowered the bar for employees seeking to sue their employer. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a heterosexual white woman claimed that she suffered discrimination...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Timing Is Everything: SCOTUS Shuts Down Retiree’s ADA Post-Employment Benefits Claim

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Do former employees have the right to sue their previous employer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination in the administration of post-employment fringe benefits? Resolving a circuit...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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Yes, Menstrual Cramps May Qualify as a Disability Under ADA

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If a qualified job candidate asks to reschedule a second-round interview due to severe menstrual cramps associated with endometriosis, is that a request for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act? If you...more

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

Troutman Pepper Locke

Water Cooler Talk: ‘Late Night’ Shows DEI Is More Than Optics

Troutman Pepper Locke on

The 2019 film “Late Night,” written by and starring Mindy Kaling, tells the story of a late-night talk show host, Katherine Newbury, played by Emma Thompson, whose all-male, all-white writing staff scrambles to add a female...more

Berkshire

Private Plaintiff Attorneys Step Up in Title VII Disparate Impact Cases

Berkshire on

After the White House announced that it would “deprioritize” disparate impact cases, many employers may have mistakenly concluded that disparate impact liability was no longer a concern under Title VII. However, recent...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Supreme Court Strikes Down Sixth Circuit Rule Heightening Discrimination Standard for Members of Majority Groups

Troutman Pepper Locke on

A recent Supreme Court decision clarified that discrimination claims brought by members of majority groups in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases cannot be subject to a heightened evidentiary burden. In Ames v. Ohio...more

Rumberger | Kirk

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Heightened Standard in “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

Rumberger | Kirk on

A recent Supreme Court decision is reshaping how employers must think about workplace discrimination—confirming that all employees, majority or minority, are held to the same legal standard under Title VII. This shift could...more

Brooks Pierce

High Court Unanimously Rejects the Imposition of Special Requirements for “Majority Group” Discrimination Claims

Brooks Pierce on

On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the notion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes special requirements on a “majority-group” plaintiff trying to make an initial...more

Venable LLP

The Supreme Court Says Employers Can Be Liable for Discriminating Against Majority Groups

Venable LLP on

Earlier this month, in a long-awaited ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a straight white woman who claimed to have lost out on two positions to LGBT candidates and was also demoted in favor of them. ...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

576 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 24
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