The Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 Term: What HR Needs to Know Now
"Title VII protects individuals, not classes of individuals."
What it was about
Recent and pending Supreme Court decisions are steadily lowering the bar for what counts as actionable discrimination or accommodation-related harm, which means HR can no longer rely on old thresholds (like "de minimis" or "material adverse action") and must build documented, individualized review processes for every employee regardless of protected class.
By the numbers
Key notes
- After Groff v. DeJoy, employers must grant religious accommodation requests unless they can show substantial increased cost to the business, not merely a de minimis burden. HR should build a documented interactive process for religious accommodations, separate from disability accommodation systems.
- After Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, an employment action no longer needs to be a 'material adverse action' to be actionable: plaintiffs only need to show 'some harm.' HR must scrutinize routine changes like transfers, shift changes, or department moves for potential harm, even without a pay cut.
- After Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, majority-group plaintiffs (such as white or male employees) no longer have to meet a heightened 'rare employer' showing to bring reverse discrimination claims. Equal pay audits, investigations, and RIF reviews must apply the same standard to every individual, regardless of race, sex, or national origin.
Take this back Monday
Build a separate, documented interactive process for religious accommodation requests instead of routing them through your disability/ADA workflow.
Post-Muldrow, an employee doesn't need a pay cut to have a legal claim — 'some harm' from a transfer or shift change is now enough.
Watch out for
- Assuming Groff's old de minimis standard for religious accommodations still applies, or applying the same accommodation process used for ADA/disability requests to religious accommodation requests.
- Dismissing employee complaints about transfers, shift changes, or reassignments as non-actionable because there was no pay cut, without exploring whether 'some harm' (like lost career opportunity) exists post-Muldrow.
- Applying a heightened evidentiary burden to majority-group discrimination complaints (e.g., requiring proof the employer is a 'rare' one that discriminates against majority employees) — this is no longer legally supportable after Ames.
She's testified before Congress on the Paycheck Fairness Act and before the EEOC on behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce and SHRM.
