News & Analysis as of

Employment Discrimination › Employer Liability Issues › 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

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

Dickinson Wright

Sixth Circuit Raises Bar for Employer Liability for Customer Harassment of Employees

Dickinson Wright on

In Bivens v. ZEP, Inc., the Sixth Circuit held that an employer is not liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), for harassment by a customer unless the employer intended the harassment...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

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

Benesch

Sixth Circuit Raises Standard for Employer Liability in Customer Harassment Cases

Benesch on

When is an employer liable for the harassment of an employee by a non-employee? The Sixth Circuit answered this question on Friday in Bivens v. Zep, Inc., holding that Title VII imposes liability for customer (or other...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

FordHarrison

Sixth Circuit Requires Proof of Intent for Employers to be Liable for Harassment by a Nonemployee

FordHarrison on

On August 8, 2025, in Bivens v. Zep, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that employer liability for nonemployee harassment requires proof of the employer’s intent, a departure from the...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Clarifying Standards for “Reverse” Discrimination, Coupled with Other Recent Changes (see Muldrow), could have Real Implications...

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

Did the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Serv., 145 S.Ct. 1540 (2025), decided in June of this year, make it easier for employees to bring discrimination lawsuits against their employers? The...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Understanding DEI Policies in the Workplace Today

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) has been a hot topic. In 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), eliminating race as a factor for college...more

Perkins Coie

DOJ’s DEI Federal Fund Recipient Guidance Deserves Attention by Private Sector Employers

Perkins Coie on

Key Takeaways - - A recently released memo from the U.S. attorney general reminds employers of the current administration’s stance on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. - The guidance is explicitly directed at...more

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

What Employers Need to Know After Supreme Court’s Reverse Discrimination Decision

Tucker Arensberg, P.C. on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025), making clear that an employee-plaintiff who is a member of a majority group cannot be held...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

DOJ Releases DEI Guidance

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Attorney General Pam Bondi issued guidance dated July 29, 2025, to all federal agencies and recipients of federal funding, reiterating the Trump Administration’s January directive that all programs, policies, and activities —...more

Woods Rogers

Navigating the New Normal: Revisiting Your Workplace Dress Code

Woods Rogers on

The workplace landscape has shifted, and with it, employee attire. As employees return to the office, many opt for more casual wear, such as jeans and polo shirts, or even summer-appropriate clothing like tank tops and...more

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

Evaluating the Employee Evaluation Process: There’s No Time Like the Present!

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC on

Now is a good time to re-evaluate your company’s employee evaluation process in light of the prevalence of remote work and a U.S. Supreme Court decision lowering the requirements for employees to succeed on certain...more

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

The Coldplay Concert Kiss Cam Scandal: Legal and Employment Litigation Implications

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP on

We’ve all heard about and been astonished (or entertained) by the recent Coldplay concert kiss cam scandal involving the CEO and Chief People Officer of Astronomer, a data infrastructure and workflow company valued at over $1...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Proselytizing Online, Fired in Real Life: Are Anti-LGBTQ+ Views Protected by Title VII?

Husch Blackwell LLP on

Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement, commenced litigation against Rock Snowpark on July 2, 2025, for allegedly retaliating...more

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

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

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

410 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 17
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