News & Analysis as of

Employment Discrimination › Summary Judgment

McAfee & Taft

Manager’s acts and omissions provide evidence of discrimination and retaliation

McAfee & Taft on

Responding to discriminatory comments, modifying work duties after a request for disability accommodation, and documenting internal business reorganizations are part of a manager’s job. But if handled incorrectly or...more

Whiteford

Employment Law Update: Federal Judge Rules Attorney Was Fired for Legitimate Workplace Behavior Concerns, not Due to Alleged...

Whiteford on

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington highlights the importance of clear, documented reasons for employee terminations. In Kang v. The Boeing Company, a case involving a former...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

Supreme Court Invalidates Heightened Evidentiary Standard For Majority-Group Plaintiffs

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025) - Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged under Title VII that she had been denied a management promotion and demoted based on her sexual...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

Employee Who Refused To Return To Work After COVID Was Not Disabled

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

Allos v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 2025 WL 1864797 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) - Kheloud Allos sued her former employer, the Poway Unified School District, for alleged violations of the FEHA and the Labor Code based on the...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

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

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

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

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

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

Array

This Week in eDiscovery: Privilege Logs are Evidence Too

Array on

Every week, the Array team reviews the latest news and analysis about the evolving field of eDiscovery to bring you the topics and trends you need to know. This week’s post covers the period of June 22-28. Here’s what’s...more

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

Connecticut Appellate Court Upholds Employer’s Right to Require In-Office Work

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

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of a law firm employer, holding that a legal assistant’s request to work entirely remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic was not a reasonable...more

Perkins Coie

SCOTUS Clarifies Law on “Majority-Group” Title VII Claims

Perkins Coie on

Key Takeaways - - The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to show additional “background...more

EDRM - Electronic Discovery Reference Model

Privilege Log Helps Defeat Summary Judgment on One Count

EDRM - Electronic Discovery Reference Model on

In Conner v. Stark & Stark, P.C., 2025 WL 1694052 (D.N.J. June 17, 2025), defendant’s privilege log helped partially defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion....more

Potomac Law Group, PLLC

SCOTUS Rejects Unique Proof Standards for Reverse Discrimination Plaintiffs

Potomac Law Group, PLLC on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that courts may not impose heightened evidentiary requirements on Title VII plaintiffs simply because...more

Snell & Wilmer

United States Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Prima Facie Standard for “Majority” Plaintiffs in Title VII Cases

Snell & Wilmer on

A unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services clarified that Title VII plaintiffs who are members of a majority group have the same standard for establishing their claim as a plaintiff who is...more

McGlinchey Stafford

SCOTUS Ames Decision: Everyone’s in a “Protected Class”

McGlinchey Stafford on

In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

The Supreme Court rejects a heightened summary judgment standard for majority group plaintiffs in Title VII discrimination cases

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that plaintiffs in the majority group within a protected class have the same burden of proof at summary judgment to demonstrate...more

K&L Gates LLP

Supreme Court Invalidates "Background Circumstances" Rule in Title VII Cases

K&L Gates LLP on

On 5 June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that, in order to establish a Title VII claim, a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority group” is not required to show “background...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Justice Thomas continues to ask litigants to challenge McDonnell Douglas standard

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court majority declined to review a decision affirming summary judgment for an employer in a discrimination case. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, noting that he...more

ArentFox Schiff

Supreme Court Resolves Conflict on Burden for ‘Reverse’ Discrimination Claims

ArentFox Schiff on

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039 (S. Ct. June 5, 2025), the US Supreme Court unanimously dispelled the concept of “reverse” discrimination, making clear that discrimination on the basis of a protected...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Prima Facie “Background Circumstances” Test for Majority Group Plaintiffs

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the dismissal of a heterosexual woman’s Title VII claims, concluding that she was improperly subjected to a heightened prima facie standard that required her to show...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Reverses ‘Reverse’ Employment Discrimination Pleading Standard

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the “background circumstances” rule in “reverse” employment discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in a unanimous decision overturning...more

Poyner Spruill LLP

Third Circuit Finds “Modicum” of Control Insufficient to Create Employment Relationship

Poyner Spruill LLP on

In order to state a claim for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he or she had an employment relationship with the defendant.  Although various...more

Littler

Littler Lightbulb – March 2025 Employment Appellate Roundup

Littler on

Fourth Circuit Stays Injunction Barring Enforcement of DEI Executive Orders On March 14, 2025, the Fourth Circuit issued an order in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Donald Trump, No. 25-1189...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to McDonnell Douglas Discrimination Claims Analysis

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

Since 1973, federal courts reviewing claims of employment discrimination have used a framework first established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonnell Douglas decision. Under this framework, plaintiffs must show a prima facie...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Reverse Sex Discrimination Case

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

On February 26, 2025, the United States Supreme Court entertained oral argument in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that centered on whether a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must meet a higher...more

Poyner Spruill LLP

Tenth Circuit Decision Highlights Importance of Fitness For Duty Assessments Under ADA

Poyner Spruill LLP on

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) places certain limitations on an employer’s ability to ask questions regarding an employee’s medical conditions. One important exception concerns “fitness for duty assessments.” Once...more

81 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4
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