SCOTUS Clarifies Standard in “Reverse Discrimination” Lawsuits

admin — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:06:44 +0000

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the legal burden of proof required to establish a “reverse discrimination” claim. In “reverse discrimination” cases, a member of a majority group alleges they were discriminated against based on their membership in that majority group. The question before the Court was whether majority-group plaintiffs claiming discrimination had to meet a higher burden of proof than minority-group plaintiffs. Specifically, whether they had to demonstrate “background circumstances” to support that the defendant was an “unusual” employer that discriminated against the majority, as some lower courts had ruled. The Supreme Court unanimously responded, “No” and confirmed that the burden of proof is the same for every plaintiff who alleges discrimination, regardless of their majority or minority group status. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039 (U.S. June 5, 2025).

In Ames, a heterosexual woman claimed she was discriminated against when she was passed up for promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and later demoted in favor of a gay man. Her case was initially dismissed because she did not offer evidence of “background circumstances” showing the defendant was a rare employer that discriminated against majority employees. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower court’s ruling, reasoning that the text of Title VII, which bars discrimination “against any individual…because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” focuses on individuals rather than groups. Therefore, courts should not apply special evidentiary burdens to majority-group plaintiffs. The Court clarified that “this additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute.” This decision reinforces the notion that Title VII protects all employees from discrimination, regardless of whether the individual is part of a minority or majority group.

The attorneys and HR professionals at Lake Effect can provide guidance on employment-related executive actions, employment laws, regulations, and agency guidelines. We continue to monitor important legal and HR developments, as well as other information that could impact the workplace. Please watch our blogs and emails for these important updates, as well as discussions of how compliance meets culture. To dive into these issues, contact us at info@le-hrlaw.com or 1-844-333-5253.

The post SCOTUS Clarifies Standard in “Reverse Discrimination” Lawsuits appeared first on Lake Effect HR & Law.

Trump Executive Order Vows to Eliminate Disparate Impact Liability

admin — Mon, 23 Jun 2025 14:18:03 +0000

The Trump Administration has directed a sweeping change to employment discrimination liability under Title VII in its recent executive order titled, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” The EO announces a new policy to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.”

Under current law, established by the Supreme Court in 1971 and codified by Congress through a 1991 amendment to Title VII, plaintiffs can pursue employment discrimination claims under one of two theories: (1) disparate treatment, by claiming that an employer intentionally treats an individual differently based on membership in a protected class; or (2) disparate impact, by claiming that an employer has a facially neutral policy or practice that nevertheless has a disproportionately negative impact on individuals in a protected class. In the latter case, a plaintiff need not present evidence that the employer intended to adversely affect the plaintiff or the protected group. Disparate impact theory has historically been used to challenge such policies as minimum height requirements, education or degree requirements not closely tied to job-related skills, and aptitude/personality tests.

The Trump executive order announces that disparate impact liability “is wholly inconsistent with the Constitution and threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.” The EO therefore directs that:

Federal departments and agencies deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent that they include disparate impact liability.
The Attorney General (AG) and EEOC assess pending investigations and suits that rely on disparate impact theory and take action consistent with the EO.
Federal agencies review any consent judgments or permanent injunctions that rely on the disparate impact theory and take appropriate action;
The AG assess whether the new federal policy preempts state laws or regulations that impose disparate impact liability;
The AG and EEOC jointly issue new guidance or technical assistance to employers on appropriate methods to promote equal access to employment.

The practical implications of the executive order remain to be seen. The EO is not law, and it cannot override Supreme Court precedent or existing statutory regulations. While private plaintiffs may continue to pursue disparate impact discrimination claims, employers can assume that the EEOC will not investigate or pursue disparate impact claims moving forward. We may also see challenges to state and local laws that permit disparate impact claims on the basis that those laws are preempted by new federal policy. For now, employers should act consistent with current applicable federal and state laws, carefully reviewing neutral employment policies and practices to ensure that they do not have a disproportionately negative impact on members of any protected group.

The post Trump Executive Order Vows to Eliminate Disparate Impact Liability appeared first on Lake Effect HR & Law.

Title VII Archives - Lake Effect HR & Law

SCOTUS Clarifies Standard in “Reverse Discrimination” Lawsuits

Trump Executive Order Vows to Eliminate Disparate Impact Liability