News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Statutory Interpretation › Employment Litigation

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

Federal Judge rules that firing of Rebecca Slaughter as FTC Commissioner was illegal

Ballard Spahr LLP on

A federal judge has ruled that the President Trump violated federal law when he fired Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, as a member of the FTC....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

Maynard Nexsen

Supreme Court Brings Clarity to "Reverse Discrimination" Claims

Maynard Nexsen on

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that Title VII does not impose a heightened or different burden of proof for majority-group plaintiffs. Simply put, “reverse discrimination” Title VII claims...more

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

Supreme Court finds Retiree Not Considered “Qualified Individuals” Under the ADA – But Pleading Can Make the Difference

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, that individuals who have already retired are generally not considered “qualified individuals” eligible to assert claims under the Americans...more

Holland & Hart - Employers' Lawyers

The Supreme Court “Clarifies” ADA Title I Protections for Retired Workers

Holland & Hart - Employers' Lawyers on

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, addressing the scope of protections available to retired workers under Title I of the Americans with...more

ArentFox Schiff

Too RICO for My Blood: Supreme Court Potentially Expands Recovery to Losses Stemming from Personal Injuries

ArentFox Schiff on

In a decision earlier this year, the US Supreme Court held that plaintiffs bringing civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims may be able to recover damages for business or property losses that...more

Cranfill Sumner LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects “Background Circumstances” Requirement for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

Cranfill Sumner LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on June 5, 2025, that majority group plaintiffs are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard of showing “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Potentially Prompts Future Litigation

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

The Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025 decision to revive a heterosexual woman’s discrimination suit on the basis of sexual orientation against her employer could open a floodgate of future litigation. In a unanimous ruling...more

Potomac Law Group, PLLC

SCOTUS Rejects Unique Proof Standards for Reverse Discrimination Plaintiffs

Potomac Law Group, PLLC on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that courts may not impose heightened evidentiary requirements on Title VII plaintiffs simply because...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

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

Jackson Lewis P.C.

SCOTUS Sets Up Debate Over Standard in ADA and Rehabilitation Act Cases, Rejects Heightened Standard for Student...

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, No. 24-249, holding that discrimination claims brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of...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

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

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Scope of tax exemption for religious entities: The Catholic Charities case

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

On June 6, 2025, in a decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which denied Catholic Charities Bureau an exemption from the state’s...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Justice Thomas continues to ask litigants to challenge McDonnell Douglas standard

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court majority declined to review a decision affirming summary judgment for an employer in a discrimination case. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, noting that he...more

Frantz Ward LLP

Higher Burden No More: Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Standard for Majority-Group Plaintiffs

Frantz Ward LLP on

In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, the Supreme Court eliminated the higher standard majority-group plaintiffs had to meet in Title VII discrimination cases. Traditionally, a Title VII plaintiff must show they are a...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

Mayer Brown

US Supreme Court Clarifies Standard in Reverse-Discrimination Cases

Mayer Brown on

DECISION ALERT: AMES V. OHIO DEP’T OF YOUTH SVCS. INTRODUCTION: On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that so-called “reverse discrimination” claims—discrimination claims...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

Littler

High Court Eliminates “Background Circumstances” as a Requirement in “Reverse Discrimination” Cases

Littler on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously struck down the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which had required majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened...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

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court lowered the bar for majority-group plaintiffs – ruling they are not required to meet a higher standard to bring reverse discrimination claims. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v....more

Amundsen Davis LLC

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Catholic Charity’s Religious Exemption From Wisconsin Unemployment Tax

Amundsen Davis LLC on

In a 9-0 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held that Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. (the “Charities) and its subsidiaries were not...more

50 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