Author: Nellie Azimzadeh

Supreme Court’s Ames Decision Levels the Playing Field in Discrimination Lawsuits. In a unanimous June 2025 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employees from majority groups—such as white, male, or heterosexual employees—do not need to meet any extra requirements when bringing a discrimination claim under Title VII. Previously, courts in several regions required these plaintiffs to show “background circumstances” suggesting their employer was unusual enough to discriminate against the majority. That rule no longer applies. Now, all employees, regardless of background, are subject to the same legal test when claiming discrimination.

Employers have long relied on arbitration agreements to resolve workplace disputes efficiently and cost-effectively. Arbitration offers privacy, faster resolution, and reduced legal costs compared to traditional litigation. But a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal highlights an important limit: employers can no longer compel arbitration in sexual harassment cases—even when a valid arbitration clause exists and the contract selects California law.

California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) remains a hot topic, with recent court decisions making it even more complicated for both workers and employers. In Leeper v. Shipt, the court ruled that every PAGA lawsuit must include an individual claim, meaning many cases would have to go through arbitration. This decision favored employers, as arbitration can be a quicker and more controlled way to resolve disputes.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal law that grants eligible employees the right to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons. Filing FMLA lawsuits might have become more difficult now. In the past, employees only had to show that taking FMLA leave was one factor in an employer’s decision to discipline or terminate them. However, a recent decision, Lapham v. Walgreen Co., now requires employees to prove that retaliation was the sole reason for the adverse action, making it much harder to win these cases for the employees. Employers have often struggled with situations where last-minute absences disrupt operations. For example, if an employee with approved intermittent FMLA leave calls out at the start of a shift, the employer cannot require them to find a replacement. Instead, the employer must either scramble to cover the shift or require the remaining staff—including the manager—to take on extra work. This often leads to frustration and resentment, which employees have cited in retaliation claims. Before Lapham, those claims were easier to prove.

On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a significant decision in favor of employers concerning how they prove employees are properly classified as exempt from minimum wage and overtime pay under federal law. In a unanimous ruling, the Court clarified that employers need only meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard; a lower burden of proof commonly used in civil cases. This replaces the stricter “clear and convincing” evidence standard previously applied by one federal appeals court. This decision simplifies compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and sets a uniform standard across the country, reducing litigation risks for employers.