News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Employment Litigation › Employment Policies

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 -
Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: What the Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling Means for Employers and DEI Policies

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

Reshaping the litigation landscape for workplace discrimination claims, last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540 (June 5, 2025), that plaintiffs bringing so-called...more

Stevens & Lee

Supreme Court Rules: No Extra Hurdles for Reverse Discrimination Cases

Stevens & Lee on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that reverse discrimination claims are no longer subject to different rules. This decision alters the landscape...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

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

Steady, Ames, Fire! Supreme Court Hits its Mark in Historic ‘Reverse Discrimination’ Ruling

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP on

The closely watched battle over “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concluded Wednesday with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Standard of Proof in So-Called 'Reverse Discrimination' Cases

Fox Rothschild LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court set the record straight on June 5, 2025 — reminding employers that all employees are created equal when it comes to Title VII litigation in federal court. The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of...more

Lathrop GPM

U.S. Supreme Court Says “Reverse Discrimination” Is Equally Unlawful - Clarifies Standard for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title...

Lathrop GPM on

The U.S. Supreme Court today swung wide open the door for all persons who experience employment discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex or national origin to bring suit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil...more

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL on

Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti,...

Losing My Religion? 8th Circuit Finds that Freedom of Religion is Not a Justification for Employee Conduct

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti,... on

The past few decades have seen a Supreme Court receptive to claims brought on the basis of freedom of religion. For example, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (June 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

U.S. Supreme Court stops district court’s order to reinstate workers

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on

On April 8, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on reinstating federal workers. The case arose from a lawsuit in which the...more

Lerch, Early & Brewer

Supreme Court Clarifies Burden for Employers Seeking to Establish That Employees are Exempt From Minimum Wage Requirements

Lerch, Early & Brewer on

In a decision which should provide some comfort to employers, the Supreme Court recently held in E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et. al. vs. Carrera, et. al. that employers do not have a higher burden of proof demonstrating that an...more

Rumberger | Kirk

From Hamilton To Muldrow: Preparing HR For Title VII Claims Beyond The Firing Table

Rumberger | Kirk on

“The Hamilton decision highlights the need for employers to stay up to date on legal developments. In this one decision, the Fifth Circuit opened the door for claims that just one day earlier were not actionable. Reviewing...more

BakerHostetler

What a Year in Labor: Top 10 Labor Cases and Developments You Should Know from 2024

BakerHostetler on

In 2024, labor law continued to generally favor employees under the Biden National Labor Relations Board (the Board). Notable developments included establishment of an employee right to wear clothes espousing political speech...more

Clark Hill PLC

Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof in FLSA Exemption Cases, Leaves Key Questions Unanswered

Clark Hill PLC on

On Jan. 15, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, which clarified that employers need only prove that an employee is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by a...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Supreme Court unanimously rejects heightened burden for employer to prove overtime exemption under FLSA

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

In overtime litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the employer has the burden of proving that an employee is exempt. However, the degree of proof required was not decided until the Supreme Court spoke last week....more

Sands Anderson PC

Upcoming Supreme Court Case to settle FLSA Burden of Proof for Parties

Sands Anderson PC on

Burdens of proof can be a mundane issue to discuss. Addressing the standard by which a fact finder decides a legal claim between opposing parties does not generate much enthusiasm with legal scholars. Nevertheless, the burden...more

Fisher Phillips

5 SCOTUS Cases for Employers to Track as 2024/2025 Term Begins

Fisher Phillips on

The Supreme Court will begin a new term on October 7, and we’re watching several cases that will likely have a big impact on the workplace. The Justices will grapple with wage and hour issues, coverage under the Americans...more

Littler

Littler Lightbulb: June Appellate Roundup

Littler on

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month....more

ArentFox Schiff

Do No Harm: SCOTUS Makes it Easier for Employees to Succeed on Discrimination Claims Based on Internal Job Transfers

ArentFox Schiff on

When transferring an employee or making changes to their job duties, employers now face an increased risk of claims under Title VII. On April 17, the US Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs alleging discrimination...more

Foley Hoag LLP

EEOC Releases Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment

Foley Hoag LLP on

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the “Guidance”). The Guidance sets forth the EEOC’s position on harassment that constitutes...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Supreme Court Loosens Adverse Action Standard for Discrimination Claims – But Avoids Dooming DEI

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on

The Supreme Court made it easier for claimants to assert discrimination claims under Title VII in its April 17 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, et al. Previously, courts required a plaintiff to show that a workplace...more

Benesch

Supreme Court Lowers Plaintiffs’ Burden for Title VII Discriminatory Transfer Claims

Benesch on

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously lowered the burden applicable to discriminatory transfer claims brought under Title VII. According to the Court, a showing of some harm—rather than significant or some...more

BakerHostetler

SCOTUS Holds that Job Transferees Need Only Show ‘Some Harm’ Under Title VII

BakerHostetler on

SCOTUS announces ‘some harm’ standard for Title VII claims based on a mandatory job transfer. The Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., 601 U.S. ____ (April 17, 2024), held that where an...more

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court Modifies Title VII's Adverse Action Standard

Jones Day on

The Court's decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis requires plaintiffs to prove "some injury" respecting employment terms or conditions in discrimination cases....more

Perkins Coie

Muldrow Sets a New Standard for Workplace Discrimination

Perkins Coie on

On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer may violate Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer did...more

Butler Snow LLP

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: The Supreme Court Opens the Door for Discriminatory Job Transfer Claims

Butler Snow LLP on

On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court provided an opening for workers to allege employment discrimination claims regarding job transfers based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. In Muldrow v....more

36 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
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