News & Analysis as of

Employment Discrimination › 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

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti,...

Is A Performance Improvement Plan Actionable?

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti,... on

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

Littler

The New Era of Religious Accommodations: Clarifying the Standard for “Sincere Religious Beliefs” and Evaluating Undue Hardship

Littler on

Since vaccines became available in response to COVID-19, courts have dealt with an onslaught of litigation involving religious accommodation in the workplace. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...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

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

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

Looping in Loper Bright to Require the EEOC to Follow Its Enabling Statute

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

Are the days numbered for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) ability to permit plaintiffs to eschew the administrative process by issuing Notice of Right to Sue letters “on request” prior to 180 days?...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

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Recent Settlement Latest in Developing Trend in Reverse Discrimination Cases

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

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

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

Maynard Nexsen

Supreme Court Brings Clarity to "Reverse Discrimination" Claims

Maynard Nexsen on

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that Title VII does not impose a heightened or different burden of proof for majority-group plaintiffs. Simply put, “reverse discrimination” Title VII claims...more

BakerHostetler

The Supreme Court ‘Ames’ to Clarify that All Discrimination Claims Must Be Treated Equally

BakerHostetler on

As the summer comes into full swing and many employees take time off to enjoy summer vacation, the same cannot be said for employers. It has been no secret that private sector diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs...more

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court Ends Heightened Evidentiary Hurdle for "Majority Group" Plaintiffs in Title VII Discrimination Cases

Jones Day on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

SCOTUS wraps it up: Four lessons for employers

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

"Reverse discrimination," ADA, religion, and nationwide injunctions. The 2024-25 term of the U.S. Supreme Court is over. Two decisions at the end of the term directly addressed employment law issues, and two others will have...more

Perkins Coie

June Tip of the Month: Supreme Court Decision Levels the Playing Field for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

Perkins Coie on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that members of a majority group are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail...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

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

Cranfill Sumner LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects “Background Circumstances” Requirement for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

Cranfill Sumner LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on June 5, 2025, that majority group plaintiffs are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard of showing “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of...more

Mandelbaum Barrett PC

The U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Employees in the Majority to Prove Reverse Discrimination Under Title VII

Mandelbaum Barrett PC on

The United States Supreme Court on June 5, 2025, in a rare unanimous decision, overturned a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that required a plaintiff, a heterosexual, to have evidence as part of her proofs to...more

Whiteford

Employment Law Update: U.S. Supreme Court Ends Double Standard: All Employees Get Equal Protection in Title VII Discrimination...

Whiteford on

On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous and highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039, clarified a critical point in employment law: all employees—regardless of...more

431 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 18
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