- with readers working within the Utilities industries
- within Finance and Banking topic(s)
Four U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the past four years collectively have created the potential for increased discrimination lawsuits based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2023, the Court eliminated affirmative action in admissions to higher education in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. That same year, the Court's ruling in Groff v. DeJoy stated that before denying religious accommodations employers must prove that making such accommodations would result in substantial expenses, rather than just de minimis expenses. Otherwise, employers risk violating Title VII's ban on religious discrimination.
Next, in 2024, the Court issued a decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, which involved alleged discrimination in the context of a job transfer. In that case, the Court held that plaintiffs need only prove the existence of some harm in a Title VII discrimination case, rather than any significant injury.
Finally, in 2025, the Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that members of majority groups, such as heterosexuals, are not held to a higher standard than members of minority groups when trying to prove unlawful discrimination.
These rulings, along with joint guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, have collectively opened the door to a rash of discrimination lawsuits. The decisions as a whole have effectively lowered the bar for plaintiffs to bring Title VII claims, while at the same time increasing the bar for employers defending against such suits. Many of these suits involve training and employee resource groups available to women, but not to men. As a result, employers should carefully review their policies to ensure the provision of equal opportunities for all, including in training.
Furthermore, employers should carefully document legitimate reasons for adverse employment actions and apply all policies consistently to all employees. Suppose an employer has failed to enforce a policy in the past and now wishes to enforce that policy uniformly. In that case, it should put everyone on notice of the policy and train managers to observe and enforce the policy.
A recent SHRM survey of HR professionals indicated that the Ames decision would impact their workplace policies to some degree. However, those professionals don't accept an increase in discrimination cases for the majority groups.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
