A new Supreme Court case could change how employment law is practiced—and how HR leaders do their jobs
Good morning!
A new case in front of the Supreme Court could change the employment landscape for years to come, and the way that HR teams around the country do business.
On Wednesday, the court heard arguments presented by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who claims she was discriminated against after her job at a juvenile corrections facility was given to a younger gay man. Ames, who is straight, says she was also previously passed over for a separate internal role, which was given to a woman who identifies as lesbian, but had significantly less experience.
Traditionally, employment law has held that people from 'majority groups,' including men, white people, and people who identify as straight, have faced a higher bar to prove that they are the victims of discrimination, compared to people from traditionally marginalized groups.
But the justices appeared receptive to arguments from Ames's lawyers this week, the Washington Post reported, and multiple legal experts tell Fortune that they expect them to make a unanimous decision in Ames's favor. Or as Raye Mitchell, an entertainment and employment law attorney puts it, 'in their view, discrimination is discrimination' no matter who brings the case.
As a result, if the decision does go through, it will likely be easier for people who belong to majority groups to sue their employers for discrimination. 'It's going to become a lot easier for proponents who are anti-DEI to be able to prove their claims in court,' Chris Braham, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery's employment practice group, tells Fortune.
It's unclear if a Supreme Court decision in favor of Ames will result in more litigation. Jason Solomon, director of the National Institute for Workers' Rights, a nonprofit think tank, says it's already unlawful to make decisions about hiring, promotion and other aspects of work based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics, although he adds that employers will likely be willing to settle these cases for higher dollar amounts in the future.
Other lawyers, however, think there could be an uptick. 'I think that any issue that gets a topic of conversation in the political and cultural world, and Supreme Court cases make that happen, will eventually bring more litigation,' says Camille Olson, co-chair of the national complex Litigation practice group at law firm Seyfarth.
Employers should already be treating employees fairly across the organization. But this case may spur bosses and HR leaders to double down on written documentation to justify why they've made a given workforce or employment decisions, especially when it comes to terminating employees.
'They're just going to have to play a little more by the rule book. Until now, companies could terminate a white male and not have to worry about a potential lawsuit,' says Braham. 'That's no longer the case.'
Companies will also have to be careful to document how and why they're promoting someone internally. When posting a job, business leaders should make sure that the position is open to everyone, and make sure to document their thinking throughout the selection process.
'I think as HR professionals, we're going to have to rethink the way that we approach any type of employment decision that we make,' says Shannon Anders, the founder and CEO of GritHR Solutions, a human resources consulting and outsourcing firm. 'Any type of hiring, promotion practices, decisions to terminate any employment practice—we have to look to make sure it doesn't explicitly or implicitly favor one group over the other.'
Brit Morsebrit.morse@fortune.com
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'This is part of the game': Trump cuts out Musk
Donald Trump talked to a long list of media outlets on Friday to make it clear that he's not thinking about or talking to Elon Musk after their feud exploded into public view on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to sensitive data held by the Social Security Administration. Michael Steele, Brian Barrett, Nayyera Haq, and Stephen Cloobeck join Stephanie Ruhle for The 11th Hour Nightcap.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Elon Musk may be persona non grata at the White House, but DOGE lives on. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency should be allowed access to Social Security Administration data, lifting a previously issued injunction that blocked the department from doing so. While the court's majority did not provide a detailed explanation of their ruling, they did write, 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the urgency of the application and expressing concerns about the potential privacy risks that would result from the ruling. She wrote, 'In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The Trump administration had previously argued that DOGE employees needed access to SSA data in order to halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE being granted such access violated federal law and put millions of people's data at risk. Two unions—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers—brought the lawsuit alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans. The groups argued that allowing DOGE broader access to individuals' personal data would violate the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure—and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," their lawyers wrote. The data DOGE employees now have access to includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings,' by allowing the move and bending its usual standards to accommodate the Trump administration, adding, 'The Court is… unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.'
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
