News & Analysis as of

Title VII › Protected Class › Employment Discrimination

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 -
Smith Anderson

SCOTUS Rejects Extra Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Cases

Smith Anderson on

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, significantly impacting how majority-group discrimination claims are evaluated under Title VII of the...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

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

The Supreme Court rejects a heightened summary judgment standard for majority group plaintiffs in Title VII discrimination cases

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer on

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that plaintiffs in the majority group within a protected class have the same burden of proof at summary judgment to demonstrate...more

Saul Ewing LLP

Minneapolis Expands Anti-discrimination Ordinance

Saul Ewing LLP on

The City of Minneapolis will soon be one of the few jurisdictions in the country that prohibit discrimination based on height, weight, and criminal history. On May 5, 2025, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey approved amendments to...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

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

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

President Trump Signs Order Ending Government Disparate Impact Investigations

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order barring federal agencies from investigating or prosecuting employment discrimination using the disparate impact concept. Most discrimination claims allege that an...more

Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP

EEOC and Department of Justice Issue Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination

Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP on

The first two months of the Trump administration saw a flurry of Executive Orders targeting private and public sector diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs, and March has been no different. On March 19, 2025, the...more

DCI Consulting

EEOC Sends Letters to Law Firms Requesting Information on DEI Practices

DCI Consulting on

On March 17, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms, requesting information about their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) related employment...more

Maynard Nexsen

SCOTUS to Review the “Background Circumstances” Heightened Pleading Standard in Reverse Discrimination Cases

Maynard Nexsen on

On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari,[1] agreeing to hear arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a Sixth Circuit case that seeks to determine whether the...more

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

‘Motive’ or ‘Animus’? Lessons From Appellate Practice

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

The term “animus” is often used interchangeably with “motive” by lawyers and courts, but the two words have different meanings and connotations, and confusion between them can become an unnecessary complication. None of us...more

Akerman LLP - HR Defense

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Reverse Discrimination Standard

Akerman LLP - HR Defense on

Should an employee’s burden to plead and prove workplace discrimination differ depending upon whether they are considered in a “majority” or “minority” group? The U.S. Supreme Court is now set to decide whether an arguably...more

Stevens & Lee

Supreme Court to Review Reverse Discrimination Employment Case

Stevens & Lee on

Title VII claims alleging employment discrimination are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework which requires that the employee first show that they are a member of a protected class (race, color, religion, sex,...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

The inexorable zero. The assault on workplace DEI. And four tips for avoiding the attack.

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

Inexorable. Something that cannot be moved, stopped, persuaded, or altered. In Title VII parlance, the "inexorable zero" is the complete absence of a protected group from a workforce or job classification. When accompanied...more

Bricker Graydon LLP

Is Remote Work ‘Protected’?

Bricker Graydon LLP on

We’ve been discussing the various implications of the current ‘return to work’ push. Another implication is layoff decisions and the potential for disparate impact on remote workers, who tend to disproportionally be women and...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

EEOC Takes More Aggressive Stance on Discrimination Lawsuits

Amundsen Davis LLC on

On September 29 the EEOC issued a press release declaring it filed “143 new employment discrimination lawsuits in fiscal year 2023, noting that is more than a 50% increase over fiscal year 2022 suit filings.” The release also...more

Benesch

Fifth Circuit Expands Legal Standard for Employment Discrimination Cases

Benesch on

On August 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit overturned its longstanding precedent established in Dollis v. Rubin, 77 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 1995). The new standard created in Hamilton v. Dallas County, case number 21-10133, allows for...more

Bowditch & Dewey

EEOC Issues Guidance Regarding COVID-19 Caregiver Discrimination

Bowditch & Dewey on

The EEOC recently issued guidance regarding COVID-19 caregiver discrimination. This guidance reiterates previously-issued guidance (Enforcement Guidance: Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving...more

Laner Muchin, Ltd.

Seventh Circuit Reiterates Who is “Similarly Situated” for Purposes of Title VII Claims

Laner Muchin, Ltd. on

In a recent opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterated the requirements that must be met for an employee to identify a similarly situated comparator for purposes of a Title VII claim. Gamble v. FCA...more

Rivkin Radler LLP

The Employment Law Reporter - Spring 2021

Rivkin Radler LLP on

Here is what we cover in this issue of The Employment Law Reporter: •A federal court in New York has dismissed an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by a former employee of the City University of New York. ...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Illegal or ill-mannered? Title VII meets Ms. Manners

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

Is it discriminatory to discipline employees for wearing #BLM face masks? When does Supervisor Karen cross the line from rude into discrimination? And join us to count down the top eight things you should never, ever say in...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Amendments to State Human Rights Law Will Impact New York Companies

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

• Amendments to the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) lower the bar for employees and individual nonemployees pursuing discrimination and harassment claims. • In several respects, the amendments align the NYSHRL...more

Littler

New York City Commission on Human Rights Provides Legal Enforcement Guidance on Race Discrimination on the Basis of Hair

Littler on

The New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR) released enforcement guidance on Monday, February 18, 2019, defining discrimination based on natural hair and hairstyles as a subset of race discrimination....more

Polsinelli

Natural Hair Don’t Care: New York City Commission on Human Rights Issues New Guidance Related to Discrimination Based on Hair &...

Polsinelli on

In February 2019, the New York Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”) issued guidance regarding employment discrimination based upon natural hair or hairstyles. ...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

New Pa. Guidance Interprets Anti-Discrimination Law to Cover LGBT Individuals

Troutman Pepper Locke on

In a significant development for Pennsylvania employers, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) has issued new guidance announcing that it takes the position that employment discrimination based on LGBT status is...more

29 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