Episode 322 -- Checking in on Caremark Cases
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
Can members of a majority group be subject to a heightened pleading standard for their Title VII discrimination claims? The United States Supreme Court answered this question with a unanimous “no” in Ames v. Ohio Department...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that “reverse discrimination” claims are not subject to a heightened standard of proof. This decision clarifies the legal standard required for such...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting the “background circumstances” requirement multiple circuit courts of appeals have applied to Title...more
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
Real World Impact: The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in a sex discrimination case as it sided with a straight woman on the standard to be used in pleading disparate treatment on the basis of her...more
The U.S. Supreme Court will review a requirement in five federal circuit courts of appeals that members of a majority group, such as Whites, males, or heterosexuals, who allege discrimination under Title VII of the Civil...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in 15 cases: Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Solutions, No. 23-971: This case concerns the intersection between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, which...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently announced that Title VII plaintiffs are no longer required to plead an “ultimate employment decision" to properly allege a disparate treatment claim. Applying a strict...more
Does a plaintiff have to specify not only the facts but also the law that applies? In Bye v. MGM Resorts, Inc., the Fifth Circuit looks at a common pleading issue: What do you do when a plaintiff pleads facts that may or may...more
Summary of procedural history: Plaintiff, the parent of A.I., an eleven-year-old student in the Dallas Independent School District (DISD), filed suit alleging DISD subjected A.I. to intentional discrimination based upon...more
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the making of contracts, including employment contracts. Section 1981 is often used by employees suing for race discrimination as...more
Employment law is full of burden-shifting, prima facie standards and evidentiary hurdles. Sometimes, even the courts apply the wrong standard at the wrong stage of a case. That appears to be what happened in the case of...more
A federal court in Texas recently dismissed a housing discrimination claim that was based on alleged disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the latest in a series of decisions applying landmark U.S. Supreme Court...more
Sometimes a judge says what many of us are already thinking. In Rivera v. Crowell & Moring L.L.P., Katherine B. Forrest was that judge....more
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently remanded a former employee’s racial discrimination lawsuit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Littlejohn v. City of New York, No. 14-1395 (August 3, 2015),...more
A Second Circuit panel recently revived a former employee’s racial discrimination suit against New York City, reversing in part the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of her case. In Littlejohn v. City of New York,...more
Late last month, the Supreme Court handed down a significant decision affecting rights and obligations under the Fair Housing Act. The Court’s 5-4 decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive...more
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States, by a margin of 5-4, held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive...more
On June 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., No. 13-1371, holding that a disparate-impact claim is cognizable under the Fair...more
In a decision certain to have major repercussions for the banking industry, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the use of disparate impact theories of liability – that is, suits that claim a law or practice has a...more
The US Supreme Court finally weighed in today on whether the disparate impact theory may be used to prove housing discrimination and ruled that such claims are viable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et...more
The U.S. Supreme Court held today that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Kennedy. He was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan....more
“You have been sued.” Upon reading these first few words of a state court citation, most Texas employers—indeed, most employers—make it their first order of business to remove the case to federal court if at all possible....more