Did the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Serv., 145 S.Ct. 1540 (2025), decided in June of this year, make it easier for employees to bring discrimination lawsuits against their employers? The outcome of the case, clarifying the standard for discrimination, certainly appears to leave open the possibility of expanded employer liability under Title VII.
Before turning to the import of the Ames or Muldrow decisions, it is important to understand the law – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) – that was the basis for both of these decisions. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in any aspect of employment on the basis of protected characteristics of employees, including race, color, religion, sex (later expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity), and national origin. Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate in hiring and firing, compensation, assignment or classification of workers, transfer, promotion, layoff or recall, advertisement, recruitment, and more.
Discrimination under Title VII has largely been viewed as protecting minority groups; however, it does not expressly prohibit claims of discrimination against majority groups. Claims of discrimination under Title VII brought by a member of the majority have been referred to as “reverse” discrimination claims. There is little difference between what Title VII protects between a typical claim of discrimination and reverse...
One of the nation’s largest specialty wound care providers for nursing home patients has settled a False Claims lawsuit for $45 million, but it continues to reject the allegations of wrongdoing ma...