News & Analysis as of

Employer Liability Issues Title VII

Gould + Ratner LLP

Coldplay Gate: What if It Happened at Your Company?

Gould + Ratner LLP on

The internet lit up recently with viral footage from a “kiss cam” at a Coldplay concert in Boston, Massachusetts. The clip, now dubbed by some as “Coldplay Gate,” depicts the married CEO of Astronomer, Inc., having an...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

Ice Miller

Anti-DEI Enforcement Takes Shape: DOJ and States Apply New Vision of Civil Rights

Ice Miller on

At the beginning of the second Trump administration, the President and Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated they would use the levers of government to end DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies and programs. The...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

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

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

The Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Employment Law

The use of algorithmic software and automated decision systems (ADS) to make workforce decisions, including the most sophisticated type, artificial intelligence (AI), has surged in recent years. ...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Missouri Supreme Court Defines "Sex" in MHRA Public Accommodation Case: Potential Implications for Employers

Husch Blackwell LLP on

Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court firmly held that “sex” refers only to “one’s biological classification as male or female” under the provision of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibiting discrimination in public...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

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

Jackson Lewis P.C.

What Do Recent DEI Training-Focused Federal Agency Guidance and Court Decisions Mean for Employers?

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Two new technical-assistance documents jointly released by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) warn that common diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-training practices —...more

Blank Rome LLP

Breaking—Supreme Court Unanimously Lowers Bar for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services...

Blank Rome LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark, unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) on June 5, 2025, fundamentally altering the landscape for “reverse discrimination” claims under...more

Woods Rogers

Supreme Court Reaffirms Equal Access to Title VII Protections

Woods Rogers on

In a unanimous decision issued June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vacated a Sixth Circuit ruling that imposed a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs in Title...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

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

Steady, Ames, Fire! Supreme Court Hits its Mark in Historic ‘Reverse Discrimination’ Ruling

The closely watched battle over “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concluded Wednesday with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The...more

2,481 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 100

"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