Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: there is continued instability and fluctuation with the (attempted) changes in federal labor and employment law resulting from executive orders (EOs) and court decisions, so check with us or another employment lawyer before taking any action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 6/29/2025 was Ames 1 of 3: US Supreme Court rejects “background circumstances” rule for Title VII claims brought by members of majority groups.
On June 5, the Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding unanimously that members of majority groups suing their employers under Title VII are not required to demonstrate “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Let’s dig a bit deeper.
The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman and employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services. The agency passed Ames over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman, then demoted Ames and hired a gay man to fill her former position. Ames challenged the agency’s actions under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
Ordinarily, under the longstanding McDonnell Douglas framework would hold sway (if you forget what the parties’ burdens are, look at the post). But, in affirming summary judgment in the agency’s favor on Ames’s Title VII claim, the (intermediate) appellate court held that although Ames had satisfied her burden, she had failed to establish “background circumstances” suggesting that the agency-employer is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” That showing was required “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case”.
SCOTUS unanimously rejected the supplemental burden. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the unanimous court, said that “Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs.” What she said the rule does is in the post. And because of that, the rule ran afoul of the “basic principle” relative to the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII (which also is in the post). Justice Jackson also said that the rule flouted the text of Title VII itself (for the reason set forth in the post). As with earlier decisions — including, for example, Muldrow and Bostock — this Supreme Court remains laser focused on the statutory text.
Ames was issued at a time when the federal government has shift focus toward discrimination against majority groups. For example, in March 2025, the EEOC and Department of Justice released a joint one-page technical assistance document (more on that is in our post of Thurs. 4/3/2025 and this post). Why that joint guidance was issued is also noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Title VII sets forth the standard burden of proof; nothing further is required of plaintiffs in the majority group. Employers must know the law – keep your employment lawyer on speed dial.
The post on Monday 6/30/2025 was Ames 2 of 3: Items of note in the Supreme Court’s reverse discrimination decision. The Court’s decision in a straight, white woman’s job bias case is noteworthy for a number of reasons, including its unanimity and the unusual nature of a “reverse” discrimination claim.
In the June 5, 2025, decision, the Justices held that Marlean Ames, an Ohio state employee, could move forward with her claim that she was denied a promotion and was demoted because of her sexual orientation. The promotion went to a LGBTQ+ person and after the demotion, Ames’ job went to another LGBTQ+ person. You can see more details on the opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in our post of Sun. 6/29/2025.
Here are four takeaways from the Justices’ ruling in Ames:
First, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. assigned the court’s opinion to Jackson. Handing one of the term’s higher profile cases to the court’s most junior justice was a plum assignment for her and a sign of trust by Roberts. It also was a strategic assignment by Roberts for the reason noted in the post and gave the final decision an extra dollop of credibility.
Second, in analyzing the text of Title VII and precedents, Justice Jackson twice relied on the Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (the holding of which is in the post in case for ease of reference). Bostock was a 6-3 decision and a highly controversial case. By relying twice on that decision in her opinion, Jackson (and the unanimous court) put the Bostock precedent on firm ground. The post contains a comparison of the opinions in Bostock with the unanimous Ames decision.
Third, will Bostock play a role in the Supreme Court’s pending case involving Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors? (NOTE: the post was published prior to issuance of the Court’s decision in the TN case). The Tennessee case, United States v. Skrmetti, is not a Title VII challenge, but rather was brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. What the claim is in Skrmetti is in the post. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bostock and was unusually silent in the Skrmetti arguments.
Finally, Justice Thomas continues his role as chief bomb thrower. He often uses his concurrences or dissents to flag a court doctrine or precedent that he contends was wrong. What he flagged in Ames, and what might be on the line, is noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: While Ames certainly told us the standard to be used for claims of reverse discrimination, it quite possibly did more just by the vote, who authored the majority opinion, and the content of content of concurrences/dissents. Keep up with the law …
The post on Tuesday 7/1/2025 was Ames 3 of 3 – statement from the EEOC Acting Chair celebrating the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling restoring evenhanded application of Title VII.
Acting Chair Andrea Lucas applauded the Supreme Court for unanimously confirming in Ames that Title VII “establish[es] the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group”. She also talked about what the Court’s decision resoundingly dispelled – see the post.
Lucas also referenced the Court’s opinion for noting that the EEOC has taken that colorblind, group-neutral position for at least 50 years. She also gave more background on the EEOC’s position – see the post.
Lucas further noted that in Ames, the Supreme Court rejected the “background circumstances” test (which had required those things noted in the post) as contrary to Title VII’s plain text as well as the Court’s precedents.
In what should not be a surprise, Lucas then talked about Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Ames (as detailed in the post).
The statement by Lucas also noted what she intends to do in this area at the EEOC (“dismantling identity politics that have plagued our employment civil rights laws, by dispelling the notion that only the ‘right sort of’ plaintiff is protected by Title VII” and how the EEOC will proceed (see the post).
Finally, Lucas provided tips to employers (that they should review their policies to ensure compliance with Title VII) and employees (see the post). She further noted the EEOC’s position and where she will take it in this area – see the post.
TAKEAWAY: Given the blind following of the administration’s EOs by the Acting Chair, her statement should come as no surprise. But the tips should still be heeded.
The post on Wednesday 7/2/2025 talked of the battle over the bay: Hidden Ridge HOA boat hoists – who controls the Bay?
For years, a battle has been brewing over the placement of a dock and the number of boat hoists that the Hidden Ridge Condo Association is allowed to install in East Bay. The conflict involves a rift with neighboring beach owner Port of Old Mission, a lawsuit filed by Hidden Ridge against Peninsula Township, and the Army Corps of Engineers. At the center of the conflict is the question of who has control over the bottomlands of the bay. The Township says they do, and regulates docks and boat hoists in the Zoning Ordinance (as specified in the post). But Hidden Ridge says the bottomlands are outside the boundaries of the Township’s jurisdiction (which, they argue, ends on the shore below the ordinary high water mark). Let’s dive deeper.
In a June 5, 2025, “Notice of Compliance Concerns” letter to Hidden Ridge (the sixth written notice of violation), Township Enforcement Officer Dave Sanger wrote that the Special Use Permit allows for a total of five boat hoists for the entirety of the Hidden Ridge Association (one hoist per 50 feet of shoreline, located as near as possible to the center of the parcel). That is a problem due to the number of hoists and docks Hidden Ridge currently has (see the post).
Sanger’s letter said that “The Township is aware that Hidden Ridge has obtained a permit from the Department of Army Corps of Engineers for the seasonal installation of a dock and 10 finger piers and 17 boat hoists.” He then notes that while Hidden Ridge has previously taken the position that the Army Corps permit supersedes Township regulations, the permit as issued specifically notes that it is subject to Hidden Ridge obtaining other Federal, state, or local authorizations as required by law. There is a link to Sanger’s full letter in the post.
At the June 10th Township Board meeting, a Hidden Ridge representative read a letter submitted to the Township by its attorney. The Association noted its disagreement with its asserted violation of the Township Ordinance that purports to regulate land use outside the Township’s jurisdiction (which was detailed in the letter as noted in the post). You can listen to a full reading of the letter about 25 minutes into the video of the meeting on the Township’s YouTube channel that is linked in the post. (Note: The videos are only available for 30 days following the meetings.)
At the June 10th meeting, the Township Board voted unanimously to issue two tickets to Hidden Ridge to cease and desist, one for violation of their Special Use Permit and one for violation of the Township’s Zoning Ordinance. A statement by one Township Supervisor is in the post.
Where did all this start? On June 20, 2022, Hidden Ridge filed a Complaint against the Township asserting that it lacks authority to regulate the Great Lakes bottomlands because the bottomlands are outside the Township’s physical boundaries and the zoning regulations are preempted by state and federal law governing the subject matter at issue. How that affected the docks and boat hoists in the bay is in the post. Detail about the Township’s Ordinance and Hidden Ridge’s argument is in the post. Hidden Ridge’s lawyer wrote at that time that if the lawsuit were to be successful, “the portions of the Township’s zoning ordinance that regulate use of the bottomlands or the surface water of the lakes will all be rendered invalid, and the Township will lose its ability to enforce any such regulations in the entire Township.” The post contains a link to the June 20, 2022, Complaint. That suit was dismissed in 2023 without prejudice (meaning that it could be refiled); the basis for the dismissal (as read June 10th from Hidden Ridge’s attorney’s letter) is in the post. And how did that play out in the interim? See the post.
Prior to the Complaint being filed in 2022, Sally Erickson, on behalf of the East Beach Association and Port of Old Mission, for which she is the developer, sent a letter dated Oct. 21, 2021 to a then-Township Supervisor. On Nov. 18, 2022 (after the Complaint was filed), she sent the same letter was to one who was a Township Supervisor at that time. Erickson’s letter is linked in the post. Her letter notes in part that the Hidden Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in 2001, originally included 120 feet of East Bay frontage, and that was expanded over time to 237 feet of frontage. She explained how that would interact with the Township’s Zoning Ordinance’s boat regulations for Hidden Ridge (yep, see the post). What Erickson wrote about Hidden Ridge’s current use and effect on the beaches and local area (along with what should be allowed if necessary) is also in the post.
At the May 13, 2025, Township Board meeting, Erickson read a formal complaint into the record, noting that the ordinance rules should be enforced. A bit of what she aid then is in the post.
Then on June 2, 2025, a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers was sent to Hidden Ridge, noting that their dock, boat hoists and shoreline changes lacked authorization from the Corps. More of what the Corps said is in the post. Hidden Ridge’s options for resolution include returning the structures to the permitted design or applying for after-the-fact authorization for the installation of the structures in their present configuration, which would then require a review and environmental analysis by the Army Corps.
The Corps’ letter also referenced the Township’s position (see the post) and reminded Hidden Ridge that the conditions of the Corps of Engineers permit do not obviate Hidden Ridge’s need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. The letter also talked about Hidden Ridge’s options (see the post). A kink to the Army Corps of Engineers’ full letter is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: community associations cannot override applicable municipal (or statutory) restrictions or requirements. Talk to a community association lawyer.
In the post on Thursday 7/3/2025, we saw that a legal cannabis dispensary receives cease & desist letter from condo attorney prior to grand opening. This happened on Long Island, NY, but might well turn out the same anywhere.
The property managers of the building sent the cease-and-desist letter to Strong Strains on June 9, 2025, when the location hosted their soft opening. The notice said that the company violated the “Northgate Plaza at Stony Brook Condominium’s property rules.” Local media reported that the letter mentioned that the location does not allow “activities which violate federal laws.” Why that matters is in the post. The letter noted the allowed purposes for the building location (again, see the post) as well as how and why the cannabis dispensary does not comply. At the time of the post, the grand opening was still set for June 21, 2025. But that was in question based on additional language in the letter (also in the post).
Residents in the community were in support of the business. Some of their comments are in the post. What a Town Supervisor noted about the conflict is also in the post (and a good reminder of the possible players in a given situation).
Cease-and-desist letters are becoming more common throughout the country. In May 2025, the Missouri Attorney General sent 18 cease-and-desist letters to companies across the state relative to classifications in the federal Controlled Substances Act and that interplay with state law. See the post for more details on that.
TAKEAWAY: an association’s Declaration / CC&Rs apply to all, whether commercial or residential. Talk to a community association lawyer.
The posts on Friday 7/4/2025, here and here, conveyed wishes for a Happy Independence Day! The post suggested you keep freedoms and the Constitution top of mind!
TAKEAWAY: July 4th is a red, white and blue holiday, but that should harken back to the (federal and state) rule of law here in the United States.
Finally, in the post yesterday 7/5/2025, we reviewed the state of the workforce: younger workers say a tough job market is pushing them to lie on resumes — and few regret it. Employers beware!
Among those who lied, three-quarters said they received a job offer and almost all said their lies were never discovered. Where did they say they lied? See the post. This is according to a May 28 report from AI Resume Builder.
Did it help those who lied? See the post. Only 21% said they regret lying on their resume, and 92% said their lies were never discovered. The head of career advising at AI Resume Builder talked about when/why candidates lie on their resumes and how the current environment may be exacerbating that. See the post.
The survey included more than 7,800 U.S. adults; younger workers and men were more likely to lie on their resume. Why younger workers said they lied is in the post. Generation Z job seekers were most likely to lie, with 20% saying they did so (compare that to the percentages for millennials, Generation X and baby boomers as noted in the post). About 12% of men and 7% of women said they had lied.
The top reasons for lying (and percentage of respondents) are in the post. Unsurprisingly, artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT appear to play a role, with 31% of those who lied saying they used AI to craft their resume. How job seekers may use AI is detailed in the post.
And what about those who use AI at work? 90% said having AI skills makes them more confident about applying for jobs that they aren’t fully qualified for (which might be an indicator as discovered by the survey and noted in the post). These percentages may be low given the findings of a 2023 survey by ResumeLab (see the post).
While most job seekers use AI for basic help, others may use it to forge doucmets or take the other actions noted in the post. Employers can combat those actions by using AI in screening platforms as described in the post. In the recent past and continuing in to the future AI will change recruiting in multiple and substantial ways. What should both employers and applicants expect? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: It is difficult enough for employers to find applicants they think are a good fit for positions, much less having to factor in that the applicant may not be truthful in what has been submitted. Be careful – but use AI responsibly and legally (and after discussing its use in your company with an employment lawyer).