A Deep Dive into HUD's New Guidance on AI-Driven Targeted Advertising — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Fair Lending 101 for Debt Collectors - The Consumer Finance Podcast
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
#WorkforceWednesday: COVID-19 Vaccination Policies, Worker Organizing Task Force, Whistleblowing Increases - Employment Law This Week®
Illegal or ill-mannered? Title VII meets Ms. Manners
Pregnancy In the Workplace...Hot Off the Press
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and held that a "majority group" plaintiff in a Title VII case need not satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden to establish a prima-facie...more
File under “thanks, but no thanks.” In an open letter to contractors, Catherine Eschbach, Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, offers contractors the opportunity to explain how they have wound...more
On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous and highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039, clarified a critical point in employment law: all employees—regardless of...more
Key Takeaways - - The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group does not need to show additional “background...more
A unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services clarified that Title VII plaintiffs who are members of a majority group have the same standard for establishing their claim as a plaintiff who is...more
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
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
On June 5, 2025, in a 9-0 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that members of a “majority group” do not have to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, overruling the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule in employment discrimination cases. The background circumstances rule required members of a...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, significantly impacting how employment discrimination claims brought by members of a majority group—such as...more
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
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, ruling that the “background circumstances” test—which applies a heighted...more
The Supreme Court has voted unanimously to end a Circuit Court split regarding whether members of a “majority group” have additional evidentiary burdens when bringing a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, decisively rejecting the so-called “background circumstances” rule that required majority-group...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that “reverse discrimination” claims are not subject to a heightened standard of proof. This decision clarifies the legal standard required for such...more
Key Takeaways: - The Supreme Court held that Title VII does not permit courts to impose a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs alleging disparate treatment. - Some lower courts have required...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that the standard for establishing a Title VII claim is the same for all individuals, regardless of whether...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, concluding that courts cannot require members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, the Supreme Court eliminated the higher standard majority-group plaintiffs had to meet in Title VII discrimination cases. Traditionally, a Title VII plaintiff must show they are a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 5 rendered an opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025).), resolving a circuit split regarding the applicable standard...more
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
In a case filed by a heterosexual woman claiming she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that she should not be required to meet a higher standard to prove...more
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039 (S. Ct. June 5, 2025), the US Supreme Court unanimously dispelled the concept of “reverse” discrimination, making clear that discrimination on the basis of a protected...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously ruled that a plaintiff bringing an action for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is entitled to...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vacated a Sixth Circuit decision imposing an additional evidentiary hurdle on "majority-group" plaintiffs (e.g., Caucasian, male,...more