Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 410: Listen and Learn -- Relevance Issues (Evidence)
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
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
In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by some lower courts in what are often referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims is...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., the U.S. Supreme Court recently settled a circuit split and held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which was applied only to plaintiffs from majority...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected use of a special legal test for plaintiffs to prove illegal bias in reverse discrimination cases. ...more
On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court revived the employment discrimination claims of an Ohio woman who contends that she was the victim of “reverse...more
The Supreme Court has voted unanimously to end a Circuit Court split regarding whether members of a “majority group” have additional evidentiary burdens when bringing a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for...more
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
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, resolving a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit split in the matter of Ames v. Ohio Dep't. of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ____ (2025). The Supreme Court...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a Plaintiff alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII be held to the same standard as if they belonged to another suspect class. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth...more
The United States Supreme Court has held that the evidentiary standards for “reverse discrimination” claims under federal employment law must be the same as those set for claims brought by members of minority groups....more
For more than a decade, California courts have wrestled with the challenge of how to resolve disputes over the authenticity of electronically signed arbitration agreements....more
A January 15, 2025, U.S. Supreme Court opinion brought welcome news for employers defending claims of worker exempt status misclassification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In the case at issue, E.M.D. Sales, Inc....more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral arguments in a case to determine whether employees who are part of a majority group must meet a higher standard to prove discrimination....more
In Osborn v. JAB Management Services, Inc., No. 24-1573 (January 22, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of an employer on a former...more
The Supreme Court recently clarified that an employer seeking to prove an exemption from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) must meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and not the...more
The United States Supreme Court recently held in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof applies in determining whether an employee is exempt under the federal Fair Labor...more
On January 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court ruled in E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. v. Carrera et al., that the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (the “FLSA”) exemptions do not require a heightened burden of proof. The decision...more
On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Fourth Circuit’s attempt to require an employer to meet a higher evidentiary standard to establish that its workers fell under one of the Fair Labor Standards Act...more
On Wednesday, January 15, 2025, in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the preponderance of the evidence standard is the appropriate standard for courts to apply to overtime exemption...more
A few months ago, we published an alert noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The case addresses whether plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII...more
On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States held that employers need only demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by a...more
Employers do not have to meet a heightened standard of proof to establish that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the U.S. Supreme Court held...more
In the recent case Romero v. Shih, the California Supreme Court clarified that under California law, parties to a real estate transaction may create an implied easement that effectively grants the dominant tenement exclusive...more
On August 7, in Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was required to consider an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s arguments that were raised for the...more