Labor & Employment Developments Blog

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court lowered the bar for majority-group plaintiffs – ruling they are not required to meet a higher standard to bring reverse discrimination claims. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. that members of majority groups alleging employment discrimination under Title VII need not meet a higher evidentiary standard. This decision invalidates the “background circumstances” rule previously applied by the Sixth Circuit, which required that majority-group plaintiffs demonstrate specific evidence suggesting their employer is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.

On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” directing federal agencies to effectively end the use of “disparate impact” liability in enforcing anti-discrimination laws. This order marks a significant shift in how employers must assess their employment policies and practices, as well as how those policies and practices impact employees.

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 (“Title VII”). Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), employees have alleged that common employment practices from performance improvement plans (“PIPs”) to negative performance reviews left them “worse off,” and thus, constitute actionable adverse employment actions under Title VII. These claims have caused many employers to reconsider their past practices and policies. 

On March 19, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice issued guidance addressing unlawful discrimination related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) in the workplace. Although DEI is not defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it has recently come under significant scrutiny. This guidance was released two days after the EEOC sent correspondence to certain large law firms requesting information regarding DEI-related employment practices.

Significant attention has been given to President Trump’s actions regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and policies, but the impact of those actions on private sector employees has not been clear. On his first two days in office, President Trump signed multiple executive orders addressing the use of DEI programs in government. One order, Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, directed executive agencies to terminate all DEI offices, positions, plans, initiatives, or similar programs. Another order, Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, directed all executive departments and agencies to terminate any discriminatory or unlawful preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements. President Trump took this action citing his administration’s position that such policies violate the text and spirit of longstanding federal civil rights laws.

Recent executive orders have caused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to abandon litigation and guidance on LGBTQ+ protections and other areas that were priorities during the Biden administration

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 Court is whether the heightened “background circumstances” rule adopted by the Sixth Circuit for reverse discrimination cases is discriminatory and runs afoul of Title VII. The “background circumstances” rule is an additional requirement imposed by certain circuits for proving discrimination in cases involving members of majority groups – so-called reverse discrimination cases. A plaintiff typically satisfies the “background circumstances” by presenting evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group. Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 87 F.4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023)

In this new podcast episode, recent cases and news from the world of Labor & Employment Law will be discussed, including

In this new podcast episode, recent cases and news from the world of Labor & Employment Law will be discussed, including:

COVID-19 and Masks: The CDC has issued new guidance for vaccinated individuals - what does this mean for employers? 

The CDC COVID-19 Tracker is here: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#county-view

Mandatory Vaccination Policies: The U.S. Department of Justice has issued an opinion on the meaning of the Emergency Use Authorization status of COVID-19 vaccines, which has formed the basis for some challenges to employers’ mandatory vaccination ...

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a new landmark ruling clarifying that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which prohibits workplace discrimination—applies to discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity.