©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 18 Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039 (U.S. Supreme Court) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. A heterosexual woman alleged she was denied a promotion and later demoted because of her sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII. The district court and Sixth Circuit rejected her claim, holding that majority-group plaintiffs must show “background circumstances” suggesting the employer discriminates against the majority, in addition to the usual prima facie elements under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief urging the Supreme Court to reaffirm that all Title VII plaintiffs—majority or minority—are entitled to the same evidentiary rules and to eliminate the “background circumstances” requirement. Arnold v. United Air Lines, No. 24-2179 (7th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. A 26-year employee alleged age discrimination and retaliation after being removed from a high-profile project and placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) following her complaint about losing the project to a younger colleague. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding these actions were not “adverse employment actions” and that the Plaintiff failed to show discriminatory or retaliatory intent. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that the lower court erred by ignoring Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), which lowered the threshold to “some harm” for discrimination claims, making both the project removal and PIP potentially actionable. The EEOC further argued that although Muldrow was a Title VII case, its holding is equally applicable to the ADEA’s anti-discrimination provision based on the statutes’ common language. Mustafa v. Ford Motor Co., No. 24-1763 (6th Circuit) Unanimously Approved by the Commissioners. A Middle Eastern Muslim employee claimed that he began receiving negative reviews after being transferred to a new team despite praise from previous managers and other managers for temporary projects. After filing an internal complaint of discrimination, he allegedly was falsely accused of timecard fraud and given another poor review despite meeting all deliverables. Following a six month medical leave, he was terminated. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief arguing that the lower court erred in dismissing the Plaintiff’s retaliation claim because a false misconduct accusation in tandem with a negative performance review supported an inference of retaliatory motive.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4