News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Hiring & Firing › Title VII

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 -
Bodman

Supreme Court Eliminates “Background Circumstances” Test for Title VII Claims

Bodman on

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court has formalized and affirmed the legal standard for employment discrimination claims for non-minority groups under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....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

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

Holland & Hart LLP

Fairness Isn't Optional: Lessons from Google's $50M Bias Case and SCOTUS on Title VII

Holland & Hart LLP on

In May 2025, Google agreed to pay $50 million to settle a high-profile class action brought by Black and multiracial employees who alleged systemic racial discrimination in hiring, leveling, and promotion. That same month,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

SCOTUS Clarifies Standard for Evaluating “Reverse” Discrimination

McDermott Will & Emery on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the split among federal circuits and held that the same standard used to evaluate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to all...more

Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.

Supreme Court Affirms Uniform Legal Standard for All Discrimination Claims

Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. on

The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a heightened burden for plaintiffs in “majority-groups” to meet their evidentiary burden in discrimination...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

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

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

McGlinchey Stafford

Will DEI Programs Become Extinct Under the Trump Administration?

McGlinchey Stafford on

In an effort to embrace diversity and inclusion, many employers established Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The look of these programs varied from company to company; however, many of the programs...more

Littler

High Court to Review Standard Applied to “Reverse Discrimination” Cases

Littler on

On October 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Case No. 23-1039) to decide whether plaintiffs who are members of historically majority communities asserting...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court to Hear Heterosexual Woman’s Reverse Discrimination Case

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case in which a female heterosexual employee claimed an Ohio state agency discriminated against her in favor of employees who identify as LGBTQ+. The case, Ames v....more

PilieroMazza PLLC

Supreme Court Opens Door to Broader Spectrum of Employment Discrimination Cases

PilieroMazza PLLC on

In April 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that transferring an employee to a new position with the same rank and pay may constitute an adverse action under Title VII. The recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis,...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS 2023/24 Lookback and Preview: 8 Key Rulings that Impact the Workplace and 4 New Cases for Employers to Track Next Term

Fisher Phillips on

The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Employment Claims

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more

Polsinelli

No Harm, No Foul: The Supreme Court Reduces “Harm” Standard for Discriminatory Job Transfer Claims under Title VII

Polsinelli on

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that to sustain a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), plaintiffs do...more

Franczek P.C.

Recent Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Lower Standard of Harm for Job Transfers under Title VII

Franczek P.C. on

In a recent decision, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining whether an adverse employment action is a sufficient basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII of the...more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Employers Beware: Title VII Now Allows Employees to More Easily Challenge Your Decision to Transfer or Reassign Them

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

No More Adjectives… Just Some Harm: Supreme Rules on Title VII Job Transfer Threshold

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

The U.S. Supreme Court Lowers the Standard for an Employee to Prove Workplace Discrimination from an Involuntary Job Transfer

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, 601 U.S. _____ (2024), which addressed the appropriate standard for evaluating whether a job transfer – even where the...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

U.S. Supreme Court: Alleging Discriminatory Transfer Is Sufficient Harm to Bring Title VII Claim

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be...more

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Supreme Court Holds That Discriminatory Transfer Claims Under Title VII Do Not Require Proof of “Significant” Harm

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP on

Recently, the United States Supreme Court unanimously determined that under certain circumstances, an intra-company job transfer can form the basis for a discrimination claim under Title VII. This opinion alters the legal...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

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Lowering the Bar: Unlawful Discrimination Can Exist Absent a Showing of “Significant” or “Serious” Harm

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis held that an employee who claimed she was involuntarily transferred to another position because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of...more

Miller & Martin PLLC

The Supreme Court’s “Some Harm” Definition Leaves SomeTHING to be Desired in Discrimination Cases Involving Workplace Transfers

Miller & Martin PLLC on

One of the decisions avid Supreme Court watchers (yes, aka employment law nerds) have been waiting for was Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri....more

316 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 13
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