What 2025 Supreme Court Rulings Mean for HR Professionals

The U.S. Supreme Court is in the news now more than ever, and its justices continue to make a big impact on employers.

The court’s Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services ruling was the most impactful employment law case from the 2024-2025 term, said Jennifer Shaw, an attorney with Shaw Law Group in Sacramento, Calif. Ames reinforced that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects everyone from workplace discrimination, she noted in a session at SHRM25 in San Diego. 

The decision could result in more discrimination claims from those in majority groups, said attorney Joseph Beachboard of Beachboard Consulting Group in Los Angeles.

The Ames case involved a heterosexual woman who claimed that she was denied a promotion and then later demoted in favor of less-qualified colleagues due to her sex. She asserted that she was singled out for being a member of the heterosexual majority group.

FAQs: HR’s Guide to the Ames Decision and Workplace Inclusion

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no higher burden of proof for members of majority groups than anyone else. The decision means companies need to consider possible litigation over employment decisions differently, Beachboard said. Employers must assess all of their employment decisions individually, rather than thinking a group of people is or isn’t protected by equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws, Shaw added.

Additionally, continue to provide EEO training, but talk about how everyone is protected based on their sex, race, or gender identity, among other characteristics.

“Do not hide behind special protections,” such as those required for people with disabilities through the reasonable accommodation requirement, Shaw said.

Other Rulings This Term

Other noteworthy decisions from the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 term include:

E.M.D. Sales Inc. v. Carrera

This decision found that employers do not need to show by clear and convincing evidence that a worker is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA’s) overtime requirements. The usual, lesser preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies — a win for employers.

The real-world impact: E.M.D. v. Carrera means that employers only need to show that the overtime exemption “more likely than not” applies. As a result, it will be easier to defend misclassification and unpaid overtime lawsuits. However, employers should ensure they create robust documentation and meet salary and duties requirements under the FLSA and state laws.

Stanley v. City of Sanford

This decision barred a retiree’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination claim over retirement health benefits.

The real-world impact: In Stanley, the court held that the ADA does not protect a former employee who no longer holds or seeks an employment position from disability-based discrimination in post-employment benefits. The employment provisions of the ADA apply only to “qualified individuals” who currently hold or want a position and can perform its essential functions with or without accommodation.

Trump v. CASA, Inc.

This decision curtailed district courts’ use of nationwide injunctions.  

The real-world impact: The court’s ruling in CASA “bites both ways,” Beachboard said, because many think of the case as the “birthright citizenship case.”

“People are very emotional about it,” Shaw added.

However, the decision wasn’t really about birthright citizenship, Beachboard said — the issue before the court was whether district courts could issue nationwide injunctions. 

“All [political] sides have abused nationwide injunctions,” Beachboard said. For example, if someone didn’t like a rule during the Biden administration, they’d challenge it before the most conservative district court judge they could find and get it blocked, he stated. 

Unlike district courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court still can issue nationwide injunctions, Beachboard said. Additionally, plaintiffs still can bring class-action lawsuits. 

The Supreme Court also specified in CASA that nothing in the decision “resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action.” 

Multistate employers, though, might face not one rule but different rules in various states because of the Supreme Court’s decision against district court nationwide injunctions. In addition, rules in different district courts within the same state might be different because of the court’s decision, Shaw pointed out.

“It will fragment the law,” Beachboard said. “Your job just got a lot harder.”