News & Analysis as of

Title VII › Employer Liability Issues › Civil Rights Act

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 -
Fisher Phillips

Employer Impact Guide to the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 Term: 12 Cases That Reshaped Your Workplace, Industry, or Litigation...

Fisher Phillips on

As the Supreme Court prepares for its next term to begin October 6, let’s look back on all the SCOTUS cases from the past year that impacted your workplace, industry, and litigation exposure. Here’s a quick guide to 12 times...more

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

Sixth Circuit Requires Employer Intent for Customer Sexual Harassment Under Title VII

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP on

The Sixth Circuit in Bivens v. Zep, Inc. brushed aside the EEOC’s and several circuit court positions with respect to the standard to be used when determining an employer’s liability under Title VII for sexual harassment of...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

Dickinson Wright

Sixth Circuit Raises Bar for Employer Liability for Customer Harassment of Employees

Dickinson Wright on

In Bivens v. ZEP, Inc., the Sixth Circuit held that an employer is not liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), for harassment by a customer unless the employer intended the harassment...more

Fisher Phillips

Another Employer Faces AI Hiring Bias Lawsuit: 10 Actions You Can Take to Prevent AI Litigation

Fisher Phillips on

An unsuccessful job applicant is suing Sirius XM Radio in federal court, claiming the company’s AI-powered hiring tool discriminated against him based on his race. Filed on August 4 in the Eastern District of Michigan, the...more

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

Did the Employer Intend for the Customer to Harass Its Employee? The Sixth Circuit Sets a High Bar

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employer will be liable for a customer’s harassment of an employee only when it intends for such harassment to occur. ...more

Jaburg Wilk

When Is a Company Your Employer? Understanding the Integrated Enterprise Doctrine Under Title VII

Jaburg Wilk on

Filing a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can be confusing when determining who the employer is. That’s especially true in a complex corporate environment, where...more

Benesch

Sixth Circuit Raises Standard for Employer Liability in Customer Harassment Cases

Benesch on

When is an employer liable for the harassment of an employee by a non-employee? The Sixth Circuit answered this question on Friday in Bivens v. Zep, Inc., holding that Title VII imposes liability for customer (or other...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Clarifying Standards for “Reverse” Discrimination, Coupled with Other Recent Changes (see Muldrow), could have Real Implications...

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

Did the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Serv., 145 S.Ct. 1540 (2025), decided in June of this year, make it easier for employees to bring discrimination lawsuits against their employers? The...more

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

What Employers Need to Know After Supreme Court’s Reverse Discrimination Decision

Tucker Arensberg, P.C. on

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025), making clear that an employee-plaintiff who is a member of a majority group cannot be held...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

DOJ Releases DEI Guidance

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Attorney General Pam Bondi issued guidance dated July 29, 2025, to all federal agencies and recipients of federal funding, reiterating the Trump Administration’s January directive that all programs, policies, and activities —...more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: What the Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling Means for Employers and DEI Policies

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

Reshaping the litigation landscape for workplace discrimination claims, last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540 (June 5, 2025), that plaintiffs bringing so-called...more

Ice Miller

Anti-DEI Enforcement Takes Shape: DOJ and States Apply New Vision of Civil Rights

Ice Miller on

At the beginning of the second Trump administration, the President and Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated they would use the levers of government to end DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies and programs. The...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

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

Water Cooler Talk: ‘Late Night’ Shows DEI Is More Than Optics

Troutman Pepper Locke on

The 2019 film “Late Night,” written by and starring Mindy Kaling, tells the story of a late-night talk show host, Katherine Newbury, played by Emma Thompson, whose all-male, all-white writing staff scrambles to add a female...more

Berkshire

Private Plaintiff Attorneys Step Up in Title VII Disparate Impact Cases

Berkshire on

After the White House announced that it would “deprioritize” disparate impact cases, many employers may have mistakenly concluded that disparate impact liability was no longer a concern under Title VII. However, recent...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

Venable LLP

The Supreme Court Says Employers Can Be Liable for Discriminating Against Majority Groups

Venable LLP on

Earlier this month, in a long-awaited ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a straight white woman who claimed to have lost out on two positions to LGBT candidates and was also demoted in favor of them. ...more

Quarles & Brady LLP

Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Reverse Discrimination Suits Under Title VII

Quarles & Brady LLP on

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court last Thursday held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes no additional requirements on majority-group...more

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

SCOTUS Unanimously Rejects Heightened Burden for Majority-Group Discrimination Claims

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of petitioner, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who commenced a reverse discrimination case against her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Heightened Standard for "Reverse Discrimination" Claims

Husch Blackwell LLP on

On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “background circumstances” test previously applied by several federal circuits in “reverse discrimination” cases....more

Venable LLP

New Trump Executive Order Dismantles Disparate Impact Liability

Venable LLP on

On April 23, President Trump issued an executive order, "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy" (EO), intending to abolish a longstanding liability theory for workplace discrimination claims. Emphasizing the need...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

Lathrop GPM

Federal Agencies Issue Guidance Identifying DEI Policies and Practices That May Be Unlawful

Lathrop GPM on

Last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance that aims to educate the public about conduct and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)...more

1,570 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 63
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