News & Analysis as of

Title VII › Appeals

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a United States federal law enacted in 1964 and aimed at preventing discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII... more +
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a United States federal law enacted in 1964 and aimed at preventing discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII has been subsequently extended to discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and sexual stereotypes and to prohibit sexual harassment. Title VII applies to all employers with fifteen or more employees including private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions.  less -
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

When is an employer liable for harassment by customers? You may be relieved.

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

When is an employer legally responsible for harassment of its employee by one of its customers? A recent court decision may be a relief for employers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Most courts ruling on the...more

Vedder Price

Sixth Circuit Splits with EEOC and Other Circuits as to Employer Liability for Harassment by Non-Employees Under Title VII

Vedder Price on

In Bivens v. Zep, Inc., No. 24-2109 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025), the Sixth Circuit split with the EEOC and most U.S. Courts of Appeals as to when an employer may be liable under Title VII for harassment by a non-agent (e.g.,...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

If You See Something, Do You Fix It If It Isn’t Your Employee? 6th Circuit Applies Higher Standard to Non-Employee Harassment Case

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

An employee tells you a customer just harassed them — what should you do? In Bivens v. Zep, Inc. the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals charts its own course in addressing employer liability for third-party harassment. The Equal...more

Littler

Sixth Circuit Limits Employer Liability for Harassment by Nonemployees

Littler on

On August 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled an employer is not liable for harassment of an employee by a third party unless the employer intended for the harassment to occur. This stark departure...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Sixth Circuit Takes Restricted View of Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

For years, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and multiple federal appellate circuits have agreed on the legal standard for proving liability for sexual or other harassment by a third party such as a vendor or...more

Phelps Dunbar

Sixth Circuit Redefines Employer Liability for Client-Based Harassment

Phelps Dunbar on

In an explicit departure from EEOC guidance and other federal court caselaw, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employer can only be liable for a client/customer’s harassment of its...more

FordHarrison

Sixth Circuit Requires Proof of Intent for Employers to be Liable for Harassment by a Nonemployee

FordHarrison on

On August 8, 2025, in Bivens v. Zep, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that employer liability for nonemployee harassment requires proof of the employer’s intent, a departure from the...more

Kerr Russell

Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit Case Law Updates

Kerr Russell on

From the U.S. Supreme Court to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, courts have issued rulings that clarify — and in some cases, reshape — key aspects of labor and employment law....more

Poyner Spruill LLP

Why Comparator Analysis Matters: A Key Fourth Circuit Ruling

Poyner Spruill LLP on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally prohibits covered employers from taking adverse actions against employees on the basis of race, sex, and other protected categories. Employee discipline is often the subject...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

Supreme Court Invalidates Heightened Evidentiary Standard For Majority-Group Plaintiffs

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025) - Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged under Title VII that she had been denied a management promotion and demoted based on her sexual...more

Perkins Coie

June Tip of the Month: Supreme Court Decision Levels the Playing Field for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

Perkins Coie on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that members of a majority group are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail...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

Mandelbaum Barrett PC

The U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Employees in the Majority to Prove Reverse Discrimination Under Title VII

Mandelbaum Barrett PC on

The United States Supreme Court on June 5, 2025, in a rare unanimous decision, overturned a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that required a plaintiff, a heterosexual, to have evidence as part of her proofs to...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

Warner Norcross + Judd

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Evidentiary Standard for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Discrimination Claims

Warner Norcross + Judd on

On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that courts cannot apply a heightened evidentiary standard to majority-group plaintiffs when deciding discrimination claims. The...more

Bricker Graydon LLP

Supreme Court Rejects “Background Circumstances” Requirement for Title VII Discrimination Claims in Ames v. Ohio Department of...

Bricker Graydon LLP on

In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by some lower courts in what are often referred to as “reverse discrimination” claims is...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

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

SCOTUS Rejects Heightened Standard for Title VII Majority Group

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC on

In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 2025 WL 1583264, (U.S. June 5, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that majority group plaintiffs (in this instance, a heterosexual plaintiff) do not need to meet...more

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

Trump Executive Order Takes Aim at Disparate-Impact Liability

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC on

On April 23, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14281 (EO), “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” 90 FR 17537, 2025 WL 1207532. The EO takes aim at disparate-impact liability, which the EO says...more

Pierce Atwood LLP

Supreme Court Clarifies Title VII Evidentiary Standards in “Reverse Discrimination” Cases, Removing Heightened Standard

Pierce Atwood LLP on

In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., the U.S. Supreme Court recently settled a circuit split and held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which was applied only to plaintiffs from majority...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Elevated Standard for Proving Reverse Discrimination Claims

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected use of a special legal test for plaintiffs to prove illegal bias in reverse discrimination cases. ...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Evidentiary Burden For “Reverse Discrimination” Title VII Plaintiffs

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on

On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court revived the employment discrimination claims of an Ohio woman who contends that she was the victim of “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

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

How Courts are Applying the “Some Harm” Standard Since Muldrow

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC on

More than a year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in its April 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. 346, 144 S. Ct. 967, 218 L. Ed. 2d 322 (2024) that employees need only...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

439 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 18
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