News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Civil Rights Act › Sex Discrimination

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

What Employers Need to Know After Supreme Court’s Reverse Discrimination Decision

Tucker Arensberg, P.C. on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025), making clear that an employee-plaintiff who is a member of a majority group cannot be held...more

Bricker Graydon LLP

Supreme Court Rejects “Background Circumstances” Requirement for Title VII Discrimination Claims in Ames v. Ohio Department of...

Bricker Graydon LLP on

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

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Transgender Care Ban

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In a widely awaited for decision, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Roberts held that a Tennessee law which prohibits certain medical treatments (puberty blockers and hormones) for transgender minors,...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Reverse Discrimination Lawsuits Are So Back

Ballard Spahr LLP on

On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Elevated Standard for Proving Reverse Discrimination Claims

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected use of a special legal test for plaintiffs to prove illegal bias in reverse discrimination cases. ...more

Arnall Golden Gregory LLP

Supreme Court Eliminates Heightened Standard for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

Arnall Golden Gregory LLP on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not...more

Clark Hill PLC

An about face on reverse discrimination: The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

Clark Hill PLC on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on the contentious issue of reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars disparate treatment of employees on the basis of race, color, religion,...more

Quarles & Brady LLP

Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Reverse Discrimination Suits Under Title VII

Quarles & Brady LLP on

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court last Thursday held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes no additional requirements on majority-group...more

Holland & Knight LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Holds No Higher Standard for "Majority Group" Discrimination Claims

Holland & Knight LLP on

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

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

SCOTUS Unanimously Rejects Heightened Burden for Majority-Group Discrimination Claims

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of petitioner, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who commenced a reverse discrimination case against her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth...more

Stark & Stark

United States Supreme Court Holds Same Standard Must be Applied to Reverse Discrimination Cases as Other Forms of Discrimination

Stark & Stark on

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

Williams Mullen

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Evidentiary Standards for So-Called “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

Williams Mullen on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs bringing discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) cannot be required to satisfy a heightened evidentiary...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court Clarifies Discrimination Test in Unanimous Decision

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously ruled that a plaintiff bringing an action for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is entitled to...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

Frost Brown Todd

Supreme Court Rejects Requirement That Majority-Group Plaintiffs Meet a Heightened Standard to Bring Title VII Claims

Frost Brown Todd on

On June 5, 2025, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court invalidated how some courts evaluated so-called “reverse discrimination” cases. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that a majority-group plaintiff need not show “background...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Justices Reject Higher Standard for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

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

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

Husch Blackwell LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Heightened Standard for "Reverse Discrimination" Claims

Husch Blackwell LLP on

On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “background circumstances” test previously applied by several federal circuits in “reverse discrimination” cases....more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

BREAKING: SCOTUS overrules higher standard for majority group asserting bias claims

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

On June 5th the U.S. Supreme Court held that majority-group plaintiffs do not have to show special “background circumstances” to support a Title VII discrimination claim. ...more

DCI Consulting

Job Relatedness and Adverse Impact: What's Legal and What's Not

DCI Consulting on

The concept of adverse impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) is widely misunderstood. Adverse impact occurs when a seemingly neutral employment practice disproportionately (i.e. statistically) screens out...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Predictions: Court Will Make It Easier for Majority-Group Plaintiffs to Assert Title VII Claims, No More “Reverse”...

Fisher Phillips on

The Supreme Court is likely to soon rule that majority-group plaintiffs must meet the same pre-trial evidentiary burden applicable to minority-group plaintiffs – and nothing more – in workplace discrimination claims under...more

Benesch

Supreme Court Appears Poised to Do Away With Additional Burdens on Reverse-Discrimination Plaintiffs

Benesch on

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, which questioned whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly decided that a heterosexual plaintiff should have...more

McAfee & Taft

SCOTUS to weigh in on reverse discrimination claim brought by heterosexual employee

McAfee & Taft on

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, an employment discrimination lawsuit that focused on a reverse discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

SCOTUS to clarify legal standard for “reverse” bias claims

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case involving the appropriate standard for plaintiffs in a “reverse” discrimination case. Marlean Ames sued the...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

339 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 14
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