Compliance Stuff

On February 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit  ruled  in  Bruce v. Adams and Reese, LLP  that employers cannot compel arbitration of a case under a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement when an employee or former employee sues on multiple claims and at least one of them is for sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. Under the  Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) , mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements are invalid with respect to sexual assault or sexual harassment disputes. 0:00 6:57 Quick Hits In  Bruce v. Adams and Reese ,  LLP , a former employee sued a law firm for disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. The Sixth Circuit recently concluded that a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement is voidable when a plaintiff brings multiple claims in a case that includes sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. This is ...

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson in  Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services , ruling that the “background circumstances” test—which applies a heighted evidentiary standard to majority group plaintiffs seeking to state a  prima facie  claim for disparate treatment under Title VII—is inconsistent with Title VII.  The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s decision granting summary judgment to the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and remanded it to the lower court.   Background Plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, began working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the “Department”) as an executive secretary in 2004. In 2014, she was promoted to a program administrator role.  In April 2019, Plaintiff applied for another promotion, but was not hired. In May 2019, the Department demoted Plaintiff back to her executive secretary position. The Department then hired a 25-year-old gay man...

  In   Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”) expanded the scope of family relationships covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), ruling that employees may be eligible for leave to care for a seriously ill sibling. Background As a general rule, the FMLA provides eligible employees with unpaid, job-protected leave for the following reasons: (i) their own serious health condition; (ii) to care for a seriously ill or injured spouse, child, or parent; (iii) for the birth, adoption, or placement of a child; or (iv) to deal with "exigencies" related to their spouse’s military deployment. The FMLA also includes a limited exception when an employee assumes a parental role (“in loco parentis”) for someone who is not their legal child. Facts Celestia Chapman (“Chapman”) was employed as a finance manager at Brentlinger Enterprises, d/b/a Midwestern Auto Group (“MAG”), a luxury car dealership. While emplo...