Recent USSC Decisions and Implications for Employers
Aug 13, 2025Reverse discrimination, the ADA and retirees, and religious accommodation
The 2024-25 term of the United States Supreme Court (USSC) ended on June 30, 2025. Several decisions announced during the term’s final weeks could have an impact on various employment law issues. These cases and decisions are summarized below, along with a note on their relevance to employers.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services – “Reverse Discrimination”
The case involved a heterosexual woman who alleged that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted, in both cases, because she was not homosexual. She claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
The Decision: The 9-0 decision, which held that federal employment discrimination law prohibits intentional discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” further explained that Title VII does not distinguish between majority and minority group members. The statute protects “any individual” from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The Court also found that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary if the plaintiff is a member of the majority group. This finding nullified lower court decisions that had applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 [1973]). The McDonnell Douglas framework has frequently been employed in litigation to assess employment discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence.
While the decision does not discard altogether the McDonnell-Douglas framework, it discourages courts from adding extra hurdles at the first step of the analysis, which is when the plaintiff produces evidence to support the contention that the employer intended to discriminate.
Implications For Employers: Employees who belong to majority groups — i.e., white, male, and heterosexual individuals — will now have an easier time bringing discrimination claims under Title VII. Therefore, we can expect to see more “reverse discrimination” complaints brought by “majority group” employees in the months ahead.
Additionally, employers should be aware that all hiring, training, review, and promotion policies are under increased federal scrutiny these days. A review of these policies — to ensure they don’t inadvertently discriminate against majority group employees — may be in order.
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida – ADA
The case was brought by a former firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida. When the plaintiff was hired in 1999, the city provided health insurance until age 65 for retirees with 25 years of service and for employees who retired earlier due to disability.
The City of Sanford changed its policies in 2003. From that date on, health insurance subsidies were provided until the age of 65 for retirees with 25 years of service or for a limited period of 24 months for those retiring due to disability.
The plaintiff was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2016 and retired in 2018 for health reasons. Due to the 2003 change in benefits policy, health subsidies were paid for a period of only 24 months. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged that the City of Sanford had discriminated against disabled retirees in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Decision: The USSC affirmed the lower Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim, asserting that “[t]he ADA does not extend protections to retirees who neither hold nor seek employment at the time of the alleged discrimination.”
Implications For Employers: This decision will serve as a helpful legal precedent for employers when and if they face a disability-based complaint. In its decision, the USSC said that “…to prevail under Section 12112(a), a plaintiff must plead and prove that she held or desired a job and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation at the time of an employer’s alleged act of disability-based discrimination.”
The USSC’s focus on the plaintiff’s present ability to perform the essential functions of the job will provide additional arguments for challenging ADA claims in the future.
Malmoud v. Taylor – Religious Accommodations
While not an employment law case, this decision may have relevance for employers when considering requests by employees for religious accommodations. The case involved a group of public school parents (the plaintiffs) in Maryland who sought prior notification about classes that required reading on certain LGBTQ+-related subjects. The plaintiffs sought the right to have their children opt out of these classes for religious reasons.
The Decision: The USSC ruled, in the context of a request for a preliminary injunction, that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow religious opt-outs from any lessons that parents believe will interfere with the religious development of their children, including, but not limited to, LGBTQ-themed materials. The upholding of the issued preliminary injunction meant that such accommodations must be made “until all appellate review in this case is completed.”
Implications For Employers: One concern raised by those following this decision is that it may create an outpouring of requests by persons to opt out, for religious reasons and on the basis of religious freedom, of actions or events perceived to be contrary to those persons’ religious beliefs.
This ruling makes clear that the Supreme Court favors the accommodation of what it concludes to be sincerely held religious beliefs. Employers should be mindful of this legal environment in considering requests by employees to opt out, for religious reasons, of any non-critical training or employment-related activity.
Questions?
If you have any questions or concerns about how any of these USSC decisions may impact your organization and its employment relationships, don’t hesitate to contact Orr & Reno for assistance.
