Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 410: Listen and Learn -- Relevance Issues (Evidence)
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
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
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
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
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs bringing discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) cannot be required to satisfy a heightened evidentiary...more
The United States Supreme Court has held that the evidentiary standards for “reverse discrimination” claims under federal employment law must be the same as those set for claims brought by members of minority groups....more
As widely expected, the Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services confirmed that a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination under Title VII cannot be held to a different,...more
On Oct. 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services –a reverse discrimination case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The question before the Supreme...more
With high-profile challenges to employer diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and “reverse discrimination” claims on the rise, a case reinforcing the circuit split over whether plaintiffs from a “majority” group...more