Discrimination Archives

Supreme Court Clarifies Title VII Disparate Treatment Theory: What Employers Should Know in the Evolving Legal Environment

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court unanimously settled the burden required by a plaintiff to satisfy a prima facie showing of disparate treatment discrimination by an employer. On June 5, 2025, the Court held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services¹ that the plain text of Title VII does not differentiate burden requirements between minority-group plaintiffs and those of a majority group.

The decision specifically impacts the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal, which had identified a heightened burden for a prima facie case of disparate treatment by majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII. Nevertheless, employers everywhere should be mindful of this legal development, particularly considering other recent policy changes to anti-discrimination enforcement under the Trump administration.

Continue reading “Supreme Court Clarifies Title VII Disparate Treatment Theory: What Employers Should Know in the Evolving Legal Environment”

Anti-DEI Updates: State Legislation and Honeyfund v. DeSantis

Honeyfund is part of a broader reconsideration of the limitations of DEI-related activity in the wake of Fair Admissions, which held race-conscious admissions policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As current legislation and litigation trends illustrate, DEI-related legal battles do not seem to be abating anytime soon.

To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

Key U.S. District Court Ruling: Plaintiff’s Challenge to DEI Program Under Section 1981 Fails When She Lacked Standing Because She Did Not Apply

The America First Legal Foundation, which filed suit on behalf of the plaintiff, included this action on its website as one of its “featured actions” in the “DEI” space. This case is similar to many other challenges to DEI programs in that the lawsuit was being brought by a plaintiff who has not applied to the program at issue. All told, the court found that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring a claim derived from an allegedly discriminatory policy from which she had yet to be subjected. The plaintiff has appealed to the Fifth Circuit. As these cases continue to unfold — at the trial level and on appeal — organizations should be prepared to assert standing defenses when it becomes clear that a plaintiff did not take these affirmative steps.

To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

Key U.S. District Court Ruling: Plaintiff’s Challenge to DEI Program Under Section 1981 Fails When She Lacked Standing Because She Did Not Apply

Although the ruling has been appealed, plaintiffs bringing challenges to organizational DEI programs face standing concerns when they do not apply for or otherwise attempt to participate in those programs. As these cases continue to unfold, organizations should be prepared to assert standing defenses when it becomes clear that a plaintiff did not take these affirmative steps.

To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

Menopause in the Workplace: A Multi-Faceted Issue

Menopause is something that approximately 50 percent of the workforce will experience during their working lives, but it is still infrequently discussed or considered in the workplace and many of us are unaware of how menopause can affect those going through it. However, employers are seeing an increase in employees concerned about menopause and their experience with it at work. This is a multi-faceted issue that encompasses a range of potential employment law issues.

Discrimination

Most countries do not recognise menopause as a characteristic that is specifically protected by discrimination laws. But employees experiencing menopause may be protected by discrimination laws relating to age, sex, disability and gender reassignment. Generally, people experiencing menopause are women aged between 45 and 55 so any unfavourable treatment (whether direct or indirect) towards an employee experiencing menopause could amount to sex and/or age discrimination. Gender reassignment discrimination may also be relevant if the employee experiencing menopause is transgender.

Continue reading “Menopause in the Workplace: A Multi-Faceted Issue”

DOJ Settles Discrimination Claims Involving Apple’s Recruitment and Hiring Practices Related to the PERM Process

The U.S. Department of Justice announced a $25 million settlement agreement requiring that Apple Inc. (Apple) pay toward a civil penalty and a back-pay fund to compensate certain individuals who were allegedly discriminated against in Apple’s Program Electronic Review Management process.

To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website here.