News & Analysis as of

Summary Judgment Employment Litigation Sex Discrimination

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

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court Ends Heightened Evidentiary Hurdle for "Majority Group" Plaintiffs in Title VII Discrimination Cases

Jones Day on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more

McGlinchey Stafford

SCOTUS Ames Decision: Everyone’s in a “Protected Class”

McGlinchey Stafford on

In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more

K&L Gates LLP

Supreme Court Invalidates "Background Circumstances" Rule in Title VII Cases

K&L Gates LLP on

On 5 June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that, in order to establish a Title VII claim, a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority group” is not required to show “background...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

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Reverse Sex Discrimination Case

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

Seward & Kissel LLP

Employment Litigation Roundup - May 2024

Seward & Kissel LLP on

May 2024 NJ Supreme Court holds that non-disparagement provisions cannot prohibit disclosure of details relating to claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment - The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of ADEA Claim Lacking Evidence of Age-Bias

On March 11, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, dismissing a Texas city employee’s claim that he had been unlawfully terminated from his job because of his age. The Fifth...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Plaintiff’s “Paramour Preference” Plan Panned: 9th Circuit Finds Romantic Relationship Not Enough to Show Discrimination Against...

In another chapter in litigation alliteration, in Maner v. Dignity Health, f/k/a Catholic Healthcare West, the Ninth Circuit held that a male employee’s theory that his supervisor’s long-term romantic relationship with a...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Ninth Circuit Agrees That Paramour Preference Does Not Violate Title VII

In a new opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Maner v. Dignity Health, the plaintiff was a male design engineer who was laid off due to performance and budget cut issues. He alleged that he had been discriminated...more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: June 2020

Payne & Fears on

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) - Summary:  Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity....more

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

First Circuit Finds No Discrimination or Retaliation in Harvard’s Tenure Decision

In Theidon v. Harvard University, No. 18-1279 (January 31, 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment for Harvard University as to a female professor’s...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Second Circuit Rules Against Plaintiff in AutoZone Case and Allows Nixing of her Deposition

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: In affirming summary judgment in favor of AutoZone, the Second Circuit rules that a sales associate did not provide enough evidence to satisfy her burden of proof for sex discrimination, retaliation and...more

Genova Burns LLC

Employee’s Failure to Cooperate Deemed Fatal to Disability Pregnancy Claims

Genova Burns LLC on

The Appellate Division has stopped a former medical resident’s discrimination and constructive discharge claims from proceeding because the resident did not do everything in her power to remain employed. On August 2, 2019, in...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Sixth Circuit Finds EEOC’s Enforcement Of Title VII Does Not Need To “Give Way” To Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: In its recent decision in EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., No. 16-2424, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit has sent the strong...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The Sixth Circuit Sides With The EEOC’s Position On Scope Of Title VII Relative To Gender Identity

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: In its recent decision in EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., No. 16-2424, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5720 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit has sent the strong...more

Fisher Phillips

Unanimous Supreme Court Scolds Lower Court Over Appellate Deadline Rule - Translation: Sick SCOTUS Burn Over Hyper - Technical...

Fisher Phillips on

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that a federal procedural rule that allows a district court to extend an appeal deadline by no more than 30 days is a non-jurisdictional, mandatory claims processing...more

Littler

Missouri Appellate Court’s Holding That Sex Discrimination May Be Based on Sex Stereotyping Offers Some Protections for LGBT...

Littler on

In Lampley, et al. v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that sex stereotyping can form the basis of a sex discrimination claim when the complaining party is gay, but should not be...more

18 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide