Insights Search

On June 5, 2025—in the midst of heightened scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives triggered by executive orders issued by President Trump as well as various federal agency guidance—the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the heightened “background circumstances” requirement imposed on Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who filed a gender and sexual orientation discrimination claim against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services. The decision, as projected, confirms that a majority-group plaintiff is not required to proffer more evidence of discrimination than a non-majority-group plaintiff in order to state a prima facie claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

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 majority-group plaintiff is not required to proffer more evidence of discrimination than a non-majority-group plaintiff in order to state a prima facie claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On February 21, 2025, a federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that partially prevents the Trump administration from enforcing its executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”).

On January 21, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Executive Order”), which significantly impacts not only requirements applicable to federal government contractors and subcontractors, but also could lead to private sector investigations or enforcement actions concerning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives — particularly those maintained by larger companies (whether privately held or publicly listed), regardless of whether they contract or subcontract with the government.

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis held that an employee who claimed she was involuntarily transferred to another position because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) needed only to show that the transfer caused “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment”

On February 8, 2024, in its Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower pursuing a claim for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to show that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

Addressing what it deemed an “interpretive incongruity,” on August 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit shifted nearly 30 years of Title VII disparate treatment precedent in Hamilton et al. v. Dallas County.

As many employers are likely aware, Title VII makes it illegal for covered employers to discriminate against employees and applicants based on certain protected characteristics, including sincerely held religious beliefs.