Workforce Bulletin

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson states that Title VII does not require a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority” group to present “additional background circumstances” as the lower court had held.

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, petitioner Marlean Ames (“Ames”), a heterosexual woman, claimed that her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, had passed her over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified gay woman. Soon after that, Ames claimed, the Department of Youth Services demoted Ames (and cut her pay) so that a gay man could fill the position rendered vacant by her demotion.

Ames brought suit under Title VII claiming that the Ohio Department of Youth Services had discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation. The District Court granted the Ohio Department of Youth Services summary judgment on the grounds that Ames failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination because “she had not presented evidence of [sufficient] background circumstances.” The lower court had found that, as a member of the “majority group,” i.e., heterosexuals, Ames needed to present evidence of “background circumstances” (referred to by the Court as the “background circumstances rule”) to establish that the defendant was the rare employer that would discriminate against the “majority” group.

Can an employer be held liable under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) for retaliation if it takes some adverse action against a former employee? Until recently, only one federal appellate court had addressed the issue, holding that the FCA does not cover post-employment retaliation.[1] However, on April 1, 2021, the Sixth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in United States ex rel. Felten v. William Beaumont Hospital, creating a circuit split and different rules for employers in different jurisdictions.

Background

In 2010, David Felten filed an action on behalf of the United ...

In its May 28th, 2015 decision in Rhinehimer v. U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. (pdf), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employee who reports alleged unlawful conduct has engaged in protected activity for the purposes of a retaliation claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, as long as he or she has an objectively reasonable belief that the activity reported is prohibited under SOX.  The Sixth Circuit has joined the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeal in rejecting the previously adopted standard that an employee’s conduct must ...

By Margaret C. Thering and Eric J. Conn

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit closed out 2012 with a decision that dealt a blow to employers defending against alleged violations of OSHA standards.  Specifically, in a December 5, 2012 decision in a case on appeal from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Sixth Circuit upheld an OSHA citation that alleged that an employer failed to properly barricade the swing radius of a crane.  See All Erection & Crane Rental Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, No. 11-4242 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2012).