US Supreme Court 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.

U.S. Supreme Court to Clarify Whistleblower Statutes Regarding Employee’s Burden of Proof

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC whether a whistleblower must prove that an employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Court’s decision will settle a split between the circuit courts, which will impact how employers defend against Sarbanes-Oxley Act retaliation claims.

Continue reading “U.S. Supreme Court to Clarify Whistleblower Statutes Regarding Employee’s Burden of Proof”

Life After Students for Fair Admissions: Dissecting Challenges to Employers’ Diversity Programs

The American First Legal Foundation and other organizations like it, have taken the position that all diversity, equity and inclusion programs are illegal since the Students for Fair Admissions Inc. decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. The groups have already filed actions against several companies for polices that include goals for the placement of people of color and women in leadership and leadership pipeline positions to match community demographics by a certain year; employee training and apprenticeship programs focused on underrepresented groups; and quantitative representation metrics for leadership incorporated into annual incentive compensation awards for senior leadership.

Continue reading “Life After Students for Fair Admissions: Dissecting Challenges to Employers’ Diversity Programs”

Next Stage Considerations About the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision: How to Put the Warning Letter from the State Attorneys General in Context

As higher education institutions, state and local governments, private employers and federal contractors grapple with understanding the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 (U.S. June 29, 2023), it is not surprising that elected officials — including 13 state attorneys general — have markedly different views about the philosophy and effects of affirmative action and other race-conscious policies. So, what should potentially affected organizations do in response to this legal uncertainty? We suggest taking a breath and bringing method to the madness.

For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.