News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) › 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 -
Vinson & Elkins LLP

Supreme Court Sides with Heterosexual Woman: Majority Plaintiffs and Minority Group Plaintiffs Alike Need the Same Evidence of...

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

On June 5, 2025—in the midst of heightened scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives triggered by executive orders issued by President Trump as well as various federal agency guidance—the Supreme Court...more

Epstein Becker & Green

SCOTUS Levels the Field for “Reverse” Discrimination: Potential Consequences

Epstein Becker & Green on

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson states that Title VII does not require a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority” group to present “additional background circumstances” as the lower court had...more

Brooks Pierce

High Court Unanimously Rejects the Imposition of Special Requirements for “Majority Group” Discrimination Claims

Brooks Pierce on

On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the notion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes special requirements on a “majority-group” plaintiff trying to make an initial...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

Polsinelli

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Evidentiary Requirement for Majority Groups in Title VII Cases

Polsinelli on

What You Need to Know: Equal Protection Under Title VII: On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they are in a...more

Paul Hastings LLP

Supreme Court Rejects ‘Background Circumstances’ Rule for Title VII Claims Brought by Members of Majority Groups

Paul Hastings LLP on

On June 5, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding unanimously that members of majority groups suing their employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) are not...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

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

Holland & Knight LLP

Executive Order: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government

Holland & Knight LLP on

Date Issued: Jan. 20, 2025 This executive order directs federal agencies and federal employees to interpret "sex" solely as an immutable binary biological classification determined at conception. The order also requires...more

McAfee & Taft

Trump redefines ‘sex’ in executive order

McAfee & Taft on

Within hours of taking office for a second term, President Trump issued a flurry of executive orders and actions on topics ranging from immigration and climate change to revoking DEI mandates. While many of these actions are...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

President Trump’s Executive Order on Recognizing Two Sexes: Implications for Private Employers

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

On Monday, January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government” (the “Order”).  The Order...more

Perkins Coie

June Tip of the Month: Updated EEOC Guidance Enhances Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Protections

Perkins Coie on

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its new Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the Guidance), the first update to its Guidance in over 20 years. Among the many...more

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

Sixth Circuit Rules That Accommodation Requests Under the ADA Can Be Inferred Without Explicit Employee Request

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP on

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the threshold for employees to demonstrate discrimination under Title VII, the Sixth Circuit has expanded the scope of what employers...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

EEOC Releases Final Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

On April 29, 2024 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published its final guidance on harassment in the workplace. As Proskauer previously covered, this final guidance follows proposed guidance,...more

ArentFox Schiff

EEOC Finalizes Long-Delayed Harassment Guidance

ArentFox Schiff on

On April 29, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published its final guidance on workplace harassment. The final guidance addresses key updates in harassment law, including the US Supreme Court’s decision...more

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

The EEOC Unveils Final Version of Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC on

On April 29, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after nearly seven years of effort, released updated guidance concerning harassment in the workplace. The updated guidance reflects three key developments...more

Jenner & Block

Client Alert: The Supreme Court Issues Narrow Ruling in Title VII Case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Jenner & Block on

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a closely watched employment discrimination case. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Court reversed the Eighth...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

No Harm, No Foul? The Legacy of TransUnion Two Years Later (Part 3)

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: As reported here, for the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings regarding Article III standing in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (“TransUnion”), the Workplace Class Action blog is providing a...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Groff v. DeJoy and Its Impact on Religious Accommodation

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of religion (as well as race, color, sex, and national origin), and it...more

Mintz

When is a job transfer, not a job transfer? SCOTUS set to determine the scope of Title VII prohibitions on employment...

Mintz on

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination in employment transfer decisions if at the transfer decision did not cause a significant disadvantage. Below is a...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Corporate DEI Policies Face Scrutiny Following SCOTUS Affirmative Action Decision

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action in higher education in June 2023, effectively foreclosing the consideration of race in and of itself in that context. Although the Court’s decision was...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Religious Institutions Update: July 2023

Holland & Knight LLP on

Supreme Court Decides Freedom of Speech Trumps Public Accommodations Law In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, No. 21-476 (June 30, 2023), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed 6-3 the lower courts' denial of the injunction the plaintiff...more

Freeman Law

The Righteous Stand Bold Like a Lion | Bostock, Religious Organization Employers, and Title VII

Freeman Law on

This Insights blog addresses the aftermath of the monumental U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020) and the ongoing collision of the right to religious freedom enjoyed by...more

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

Developments in the Law on Protections for LGBTQ+ Employees

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C. on

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County,140 S. Ct. 1731, 1754 (2020) that expanded the prohibition against sex discrimination under Title VII (“Title VII”) of the Civil Rights Act to include discrimination on...more

71 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