Compliance Stuff

The EEOC recently updated its workplace harassment enforcement guidance to reflect a Texas federal court ruling that found the Biden-era EEOC had overstepped its authority by requiring bathroom, dress, and pronoun accommodations under Title VII – but are things as clearcut for employers as they seem? The Biden-era EEOC had defined sexual harassment to include conduct such as denying an individual access to a bathroom consistent with their gender identity, intentionally misgendering someone, or targeting individuals who do not conform to traditional gender-based appearance or behavior norms . But the current EEOC disagreed and, in June, took action to minimize these interpretations . Despite these developments, Title VII continues to prohibit employment discrimination based on sex—including sexual orientation and gender identity— and courts remain free to interpret Title VII independently of the EEOC’s current enforcement position . As the scope of Title VII’s protections continues to e...

  On February 26, 2025, the United States Supreme Court entertained oral argument in   Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services , a case that centered on whether a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must meet a higher burden—namely, showing supporting “background circumstances”—in establishing a   prima facie   case of discrimination under Title VII. Background Plaintiff Ames, a heterosexual woman, began working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the “Department”) in 2004. In 2014, she was promoted to Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act.  In April 2019, Plaintiff applied for another promotion, but was not selected.  Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff alleges that her supervisor suggested that Plaintiff retire.  In May 2019, Plaintiff was demoted, which resulted in a significant pay cut, and the Department hired a 25-year-old gay man for the position.  Later that year, a gay woman received the promotion Plaintiff had appl...