News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Employment Litigation › Employees

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 -
Ballard Spahr LLP

Supreme Court allows Education Department to fire employees; Is CFPB Staff Next?

Ballard Spahr LLP on

In another case that may not augur well for the CFPB staff, the Supreme Court is allowing the Trump Administration to continue dismantling the Education Department, lifting a court order that had required the rehiring of as...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

The Supreme Court rules that individuals who no longer hold or seek to hold a job do not have standing to sue under the ADA for...

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer on

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida that a retired employee who could no longer hold or seek to hold her job could not sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act...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

Poyner Spruill LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Update: Recent Employment Law Decision

Poyner Spruill LLP on

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another important decision in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida. This decision follows on the heels of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services...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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Supreme Court Limits ADA Claims to Employees and Applicants, Not Retirees

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

In, Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act, holding that Title I’s employment discrimination provisions do not apply to individuals who are...more

FordHarrison

Supreme Court: Retirees Who Cannot Work are not "Qualified Individuals" Entitled to Protection Under Title I of the Americans with...

FordHarrison on

On June 20, 2025, in Stanley v. City of Sanford, the United States Supreme Court concluded that a retiree who could no longer work because of a disability is not a “qualified individual” entitled to protection under Title I...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Timing Is Everything: SCOTUS Shuts Down Retiree’s ADA Post-Employment Benefits Claim

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Do former employees have the right to sue their previous employer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination in the administration of post-employment fringe benefits? Resolving a circuit...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

Troutman Pepper Locke

Water Cooler Talk: ‘Late Night’ Shows DEI Is More Than Optics

Troutman Pepper Locke on

The 2019 film “Late Night,” written by and starring Mindy Kaling, tells the story of a late-night talk show host, Katherine Newbury, played by Emma Thompson, whose all-male, all-white writing staff scrambles to add a female...more

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

SCOTUS Just Made it Easier for Employees to Bring “Reverse Discrimination” Lawsuits

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Sixth Circuit’s rule, which required plaintiffs of a majority group to satisfy an additional burden as part of establishing a prima facie case of Title...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Supreme Court Strikes Down Sixth Circuit Rule Heightening Discrimination Standard for Members of Majority Groups

Troutman Pepper Locke on

A recent Supreme Court decision clarified that discrimination claims brought by members of majority groups in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases cannot be subject to a heightened evidentiary burden. In Ames v. Ohio...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

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

In the Zone: Third Circuit Expands Title IX’s “Zone of Interests”

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Oldham v. Pennsylvania State Univ., No. 22-2056 (3d Cir. May 29, 2025) that Title IX may allow for claims by non-students and non-employees. In the...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

Bracewell LLP

Employees in the “Majority” Do Not Have Higher Burden When Proving Discrimination Says Unanimous Supreme Court

Bracewell LLP on

In a case filed by a heterosexual woman claiming she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that she should not be required to meet a higher standard to prove...more

Blank Rome LLP

Breaking—Supreme Court Unanimously Lowers Bar for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services...

Blank Rome LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark, unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) on June 5, 2025, fundamentally altering the landscape for “reverse discrimination” claims under...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Employees to Prove “Reverse Discrimination”

Amundsen Davis LLC on

Hune 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in the case of Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, that “the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a...more

Payne & Fears

SCOTUS Eases the Standard for Reverse Discrimination Claims Under Title VII

Payne & Fears on

Today, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously held that in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not...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

Gould + Ratner LLP

Ames Analysis: Reverse Discrimination Reversed

Gould + Ratner LLP on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, striking down the “background circumstances” requirement in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases. The Court held...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

6 Reasons Why Arbitration Offers Equitable Resolutions

Proskauer Rose LLP on

On the 100th anniversary of the Federal Arbitration Act, it is worth recalling that the law was enacted in 1925 in response to what the U.S. Supreme Court later called, in its 2011 opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion,...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Every PAGA Action Has An Individual Component Which May Be Subject To Arbitration

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP on

Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises Inc. v. Moriana, California courts did not consider the components of a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim. ...more

Butler Snow LLP

SCOTUS Confirms Lower Standard of Proof for Employers Claiming FLSA Exemptions

Butler Snow LLP on

Last month the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) delivered a pro-employer ruling on the standard of proof required under certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the...more

Mayer Brown

US Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Higher Standard of Proof for Overtime Exemptions Under FLSA

Mayer Brown on

On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court handed employers a win by confirming that exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) need only be proven by a “preponderance of the evidence.” In doing so, the Court...more

68 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3
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