Supreme Court Decisions Open Door to More Title VII Claims

Four Supreme Court decisions in the past few years have created a “Lego tower” for plaintiffs to build upon and bring more discrimination cases, legal experts said during a session at SHRM25 in San Diego. 

In 2023, in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in admissions in higher education. 

Also in 2023, in Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court ruled that employers must prove religious accommodations inflict substantial costs — rather than just de minimis costs — before denying them or else risk being found in violation of the prohibition on religious discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII also prohibits discrimination based on race, color, gender, or national origin. 

The Supreme Court again opened the door to more Title VII lawsuits in 2024 in Muldrow v. St. Louis. In that decision in the context of a job transfer, the court ruled that plaintiffs need only show some harm to allege discrimination — rather than a significant injury — in violation of Title VII. 

This year, the court held in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that there is no higher evidentiary standard for members of majority groups — such as heterosexuals — who are trying to show unlawful discrimination.  

Plaintiffs are using all these cases like “Lego blocks” to bring more Title VII claims, said Elizabeth Beske, a professor at American University Washington College of Law and associate dean for scholarship at American University in Washington, D.C. 

Based on this “Lego tower” of decisions, there are “a lot of suits” over employee resource groups and training being offered to women but not men, said Samantha Grant, an attorney with Reed Smith in Los Angeles. 

Employers should examine their policies to determine if there is equal opportunity for all — not benefits for some but not others — including in training, she added. 

Standards for plaintiffs have been lowered by the Supreme Court to make it easier for them to bring Title VII claims, while the bar has been set higher for employers to defend against them. 

“Ames has expanded the pool of potential plaintiffs in a lot of circuits,” Beske said. There “may be a lot more possible lawsuits.” 

HR needs to be ready with documentation to show there was a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action, as well as consistent application of a policy, Grant emphasized. 

A session attendee asked about a scenario in which a policy hasn’t been applied consistently in the past, such that an employer can’t enforce it anymore. At what point can the employer start enforcing it again? 

“The best way to deal with this situation is to put everyone on notice,” Grant replied. Remind everyone of the policy and train managers. That way, going forward, if someone violates the policy, the employer can take action if the policy is enforced consistently since it was reaffirmed. 

HR’s Reaction to Ames

Over 3 in 4 HR professionals surveyed by SHRM (77%) said their workplace policies would be impacted in some way by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ames. However, more than 2 in 3 (68%) do not anticipate any changes to the frequency of discrimination claims at their organizations for majority groups. 

HR professionals identified labor and employee relations (54%), inclusion and diversity (48%), and recruiting (38%) as the top three areas likely to be affected by the Ames ruling.  

SHRM Statement

In a statement following Ames, Emily M. Dickens, J.D., SHRM’s chief of staff and head of government affairs, said, “The Supreme Court’s ruling, alongside recent joint guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, signals an evolution in how Title VII protections should be understood by employers and employees alike. By eliminating the need to prove ‘background circumstances’ for ‘majority’ plaintiffs, the court removes a procedural barrier, reshaping how lower courts assess discrimination claims and preventing premature dismissals.” 

She added, “For employers, this ruling carries significant implications. It reaffirms Title VII’s fundamental role in prohibiting workplace discrimination and reinforces that employment decisions cannot be based on an individual’s protected characteristics — regardless of who that employee is. This should prompt organizations to reassess how they approach employment decisions, including hiring, promotions, terminations, and other workplace actions.”

Toolkit: BEAM Framework for Inclusion