News & Analysis as of

Discrimination › Supreme Court of the United States › Title VII

Discrimination is prejudicial treatment related to (or inappropriate consideration of) an individual's actual or perceived membership in a particular class, group or category, such as an individual's... more +
Discrimination is prejudicial treatment related to (or inappropriate consideration of) an individual's actual or perceived membership in a particular class, group or category, such as an individual's race, religion, gender, age, to name a few.  less -
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

Benesch

Supreme Court Appears Poised to Do Away With Additional Burdens on Reverse-Discrimination Plaintiffs

Benesch on

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, which questioned whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly decided that a heterosexual plaintiff should have...more

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

Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism Over Higher Burden in Majority Discrimination Cases

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

The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral arguments in a case to determine whether employees who are part of a majority group must meet a higher standard to prove discrimination....more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Supreme Court Poised to Strike Down Reverse Discrimination Standard

Husch Blackwell LLP on

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that challenges the heightened evidentiary burden imposed on majority-group plaintiffs in Title VII...more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Supreme Court Signals it Will Reject Heightened Burden for Majority Group Plaintiffs in “Reverse Discrimination” Employment Claims

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court and all three counsel appearing before it in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, appeared to walk away in “radical agreement” — as noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch — that a...more

FordHarrison

Pam Bondi's Memo to DOJ on DEI: What it Means for Private Employers

FordHarrison on

On February 5, 2025, newly confirmed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo to all U.S. Department of Justice Departments targeting private employers’ use of DEI initiatives.  The memo is titled “Ending Illegal DEI and...more

Rumberger | Kirk

From Hamilton To Muldrow: Preparing HR For Title VII Claims Beyond The Firing Table

Rumberger | Kirk on

“The Hamilton decision highlights the need for employers to stay up to date on legal developments. In this one decision, the Fifth Circuit opened the door for claims that just one day earlier were not actionable. Reviewing...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

President Trump Issues Sweeping Executive Orders Aimed at DEI

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

In his inaugural address on Monday, January 20, 2025, President Trump declared, “We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.” In the days that followed, President Trump has proceeded to issue a series of...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Supreme Court to Hear Reverse Discrimination Appeal

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

A few months ago, we published an alert noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The case addresses whether plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII...more

Littler

High Court to Review Standard Applied to “Reverse Discrimination” Cases

Littler on

On October 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Case No. 23-1039) to decide whether plaintiffs who are members of historically majority communities asserting...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

FordHarrison

How Courts Have Analyzed Discrimination Claims after the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri:...

FordHarrison on

Real World Impact: In April, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, lowering the standard that federal courts had applied for decades on discriminatory transfer claims under Title VII...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

The man who said "no" to DEI training, and four lessons for employers

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

Employer's DEI mandate scores a win. A white guy refused to take his employer's mandatory "unconscious bias" training, and he was fired. He sued the employer for retaliation, his lawsuit was dismissed, and this week an...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Employment Claims

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Employers Beware: Title VII Now Allows Employees to More Easily Challenge Your Decision to Transfer or Reassign Them

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Navigating the Rock & the Hard Place: Conflicting Federal and State Mandates for LGBTQ Employees

Foley & Lardner LLP on

“The rock and the hard place.” How often do employers find themselves here? If employers have LGBTQ employees in certain states, they are now bumping up against the “rock” of federal laws, like Title VII and Title IX, and the...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Get with the Pronoun: Eleventh Circuit Rules Pervasive Misgendering Is Harassment

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more

Jaburg Wilk

US Supreme Court Lowers the Threshold Harm Required for Employees to Maintain Title VII Discrimination Claims

Jaburg Wilk on

In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court held that an employee need only show “some harm” to maintain a Title VII discrimination claim against an employer for a lateral job transfer. Background - After nine...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

No More Adjectives… Just Some Harm: Supreme Rules on Title VII Job Transfer Threshold

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Supreme Court Holds That Employees Need Not Show “Significant” Harm to Support a Title VII Discrimination Claim Based on a Job...

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a lateral job transfer can – in certain circumstances – be an illegal adverse action and support a claim for a lawsuit for unlawful discrimination. This...more

Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP

Lateral Transfers and Reassignments Resulting in “Some Harm” May Now Give Rise To Actionable Discrimination Under Title VII

Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP on

For decades, employers have depended on the rule that transferring or reassigning an employee would not give rise to an actionable discrimination claim, as long as such an action did not “significantly” change an employee’s...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

SCOTUS Lowered the Threshold of Harm Required for Title VII Discrimination Claims

Ballard Spahr LLP on

Last week, on April 17, 2024, the US Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)...more

Saul Ewing LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split Concerning Title VII Actions Related to Workplace Transfers

Saul Ewing LLP on

On April 17, 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split over the standard to apply to Title VII discrimination cases challenging job transfers, ruling that discriminatory workplace transfers are prohibited even if...more

Perkins Coie

Muldrow Sets a New Standard for Workplace Discrimination

Perkins Coie on

On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer may violate Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer did...more

Butler Snow LLP

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: The Supreme Court Opens the Door for Discriminatory Job Transfer Claims

Butler Snow LLP on

On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court provided an opening for workers to allege employment discrimination claims regarding job transfers based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. In Muldrow v....more

124 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5
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