News & Analysis as of

Employment Discrimination Employment Litigation Adverse Employment Action

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti,...

Is A Performance Improvement Plan Actionable?

Performance improvement plans or PIPs are an effective tool to document an employee’s work issues, establishing constructive goals over a set time frame. Ideally, the employee improves their performance and works with...more

Poyner Spruill LLP

Why Comparator Analysis Matters: A Key Fourth Circuit Ruling

Poyner Spruill LLP on

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

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Mandatory referral to EAP may be "adverse action," court says

"Some harm" is all it takes. A federal appeals court found this week that requiring an employee to enter an Employee Assistance Program may be an “adverse employment action” under the federal anti-discrimination laws....more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Recent Settlement Latest in Developing Trend in Reverse Discrimination Cases

It was announced on July 7 that IBM had resolved a former consultant’s ​“reverse” discrimination claim for an undisclosed sum, closing the door on his Title VII race and sex discrimination lawsuit. This settlement is yet...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Adverse employment actions require a decision maker. Make sure you have one.

Among the first questions I ask when investigating a lawsuit accusing my client of discriminatory conduct is, “Who made the decision?” The reasons are simple. First, an adverse employment action – like termination,...more

Bodman

Supreme Court Eliminates “Background Circumstances” Test for Title VII Claims

Bodman on

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court has formalized and affirmed the legal standard for employment discrimination claims for non-minority groups under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....more

Warner Norcross + Judd

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Evidentiary Standard for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Discrimination Claims

Warner Norcross + Judd on

On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that courts cannot apply a heightened evidentiary standard to majority-group plaintiffs when deciding discrimination claims. The...more

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

SCOTUS Rejects Heightened Standard for Title VII Majority Group

In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 2025 WL 1583264, (U.S. June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that majority group plaintiffs (in this instance, a heterosexual plaintiff) do not need to meet...more

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

How Courts are Applying the “Some Harm” Standard Since Muldrow

More than a year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in its April 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. 346, 144 S. Ct. 967, 218 L. Ed. 2d 322 (2024) that employees need only...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

McDermott Will & Schulte

SCOTUS Clarifies Standard for Evaluating “Reverse” Discrimination

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the split among federal circuits and held that the same standard used to evaluate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to all...more

Franczek P.C.

Supreme Court Rules Anti-Discrimination Protections Apply Equally to All

Franczek P.C. on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to meet a more stringent burden of proof in order to prove unlawful employment discrimination under Title VII of the...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Heightened Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

CDF Labor Law LLP on

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a longstanding rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts that imposed a...more

Miller Canfield

No More Extra Hurdles: Court Strikes Down Title VII Bias Rule

Miller Canfield on

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

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Card-Holder Survives Employer’s Motion to Dismiss

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

A recent opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania serves a win to a medical marijuana card-holder who brought claims against an employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Pennsylvania Medical...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Three decisions provide cautions for employers who do business in the Bay State

Three recent court decisions provide important reminders for businesses with employees in Massachusetts. One involves application of the Massachusetts Wage Act to remote workers; one clarifies potential liability for...more

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more

McAfee & Taft

Can a non-disabled employee recover backpay under the ADA? At least one appeals court thinks so.

McAfee & Taft on

In the brilliant 1993 movie The Fugitive, there is an iconic scene in which the wrongly accused Dr. Richard Kimble emphatically tells Deputy U.S. Marshal Samuel Gerard, “I didn’t kill my wife!” Gerard responds, “I don’t...more

Venable LLP

Seventh Circuit Ruling Permits Back Pay for ADA Discrimination for Non-Disabled Workers

Venable LLP on

Last month, in Nawara v. Cook County Municipality, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said a violation of ADA protections from medical examinations or inquiries counts as discrimination on account of disability, regardless...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

Seventh Circuit Holds That Unlawful Medical Inquiries Trigger Claims Under the ADA for Non-Disabled Employees

On April 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) issued a landmark ruling that could allow non-disabled workers to recover back pay under a...more

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

More Arrested Developments: Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds ‘Arrest Record’ Encompasses Noncriminal Civil Violations

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently provided significant guidance resolving uncertainty about the scope of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act’s (WFEA) prohibition against discrimination based on an employee’s or...more

Woods Rogers

A Retaliation Refresher: What's the Tea in L&E?

Woods Rogers on

In this episode of What’s the Tea in L&E, Labor & Employment attorney Mike Gardner joins host Leah Stiegler to unpack the topic of workplace retaliation. Retaliation occurs when an employee faces negative consequences because...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

Weintraub Tobin

You Can’t Make Me Go to that Meeting! CA Law Prohibits Adverse Action Against Employees Who Refuse to Go to Certain Meetings

Weintraub Tobin on

If you followed California’s 2024 Legislative term, you know that Senate Bill 399 (“SB 399”) was passed and signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 27, 2024. For the most part, SB 399 has been described as a new...more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

[Webinar] The Latest in Employment Discrimination Laws - December 12th, 1:00 pm EST

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

Employment discrimination in the workplace is alive and well. Indeed, according to Monster’s recent Workplace Discrimination Poll, only 9% of workers claim to have NOT faced some form of workplace discrimination. There have...more

99 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

"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