News & Analysis as of

Title VII › Protected Class › Employment Litigation

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

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

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

Holland & Knight LLP

When Social Media Posts Become Workplace Harassment

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 25, 2024, ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, companies can be held liable for claims of a hostile work environment if an employee shares...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Mandatory Unconscious Bias Training Did Not Violate Title VII

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

Employers are facing an increasing number of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges and lawsuits from white employees who claim that exposure to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training at work...more

Smith Anderson

Supreme Court Lowers The Bar For Title VII Claims

Smith Anderson on

On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court resolved a split among the federal circuit courts over whether an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must meet a heightened threshold of...more

Benesch

Supreme Court Lowers Plaintiffs’ Burden for Title VII Discriminatory Transfer Claims

Benesch on

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously lowered the burden applicable to discriminatory transfer claims brought under Title VII. According to the Court, a showing of some harm—rather than significant or some...more

BakerHostetler

SCOTUS Holds that Job Transferees Need Only Show ‘Some Harm’ Under Title VII

BakerHostetler on

SCOTUS announces ‘some harm’ standard for Title VII claims based on a mandatory job transfer. The Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., 601 U.S. ____ (April 17, 2024), held that where an...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

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

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

Fisher Phillips

The Top 5 (Non-COVID-19) Developments In Dealership Employment Law

Fisher Phillips on

You have probably seen a lot of coronavirus news alerts lately, but as a car dealer, you already know that germs are not the only things that can cause headaches. Virus or no virus, the law is still going to change and...more

Rumberger | Kirk

The Circuit Court Showdown: Will SCOTUS Say Yay or Nay Under Title VII to LGBT Workplace Discrimination?

Rumberger | Kirk on

Employers have long known that gender stereotyping is not allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. However, there has been some confusion over whether this prohibition...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The Top Five Most Intriguing Developments In EEOC-Initiated Litigation In 2019 (And a Preview of Our Annual EEOC Litigation...

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: Stepping into a new year always gives one a chance to reflect on the lessons and trends of the prior year. In that spirit, we are pleased to present our annual selections for the five most intriguing...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Ex-Employees Can Challenge Statistical Impact of Reductions in Force

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

On occasion, employers defending lawsuits filed by their employees raise questions over the legal validity of what most attorneys consider to be settled law. A good example comes from a recent decision by the U.S. Court of...more

Fisher Phillips

Can You Be Held Personally Liable In An Employment Lawsuit? The Answer Lies Down A Rabbit Hole

Fisher Phillips on

In “Alice in Wonderland,” the Queen of Hearts once proclaimed, “Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” This appears to be the rallying cry of many plaintiffs across the country when...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

The Saga Continues: Second Circuit Court of Appeals Holds that Sexual Orientation Discrimination is Sex Discrimination Under Title...

Foley & Lardner LLP on

We have steadily followed the evolving legal landscape, including the emerging circuit court split, surrounding whether the federal anti-discrimination law, Title VII, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or...more

Fisher Phillips

Another Landmark Ruling: Court Says Transgender Discrimination Violates Federal Anti-Bias Law - Three Things You Need To Know...

Fisher Phillips on

In what appears to be the first time a federal appeals court has extended the nation’s main federal employment discrimination statute to cover transgender and transitioning employees, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Second Circuit Breaks Ground: Sexual Orientation Discrimination Federally Protected

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on

On February 26, 2018, the Second Circuit ruled for the first time that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The question at issue in Zarda v. Altitude...more

Stinson LLP

Second Circuit Joins Seventh in Expanding Gender Discrimination Definition

Stinson LLP on

On February 26, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an en-banc opinion holding that an employment action based on sexual orientation is discrimination based on sex....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