The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 Labor Docket

Understanding the EEOC’s 2024 Workplace Harassment Guidance
Understanding the EEOC’s 2024 Workplace Harassment Guidance
January 10, 2025
discrimination law

As the U.S. Supreme Court embarks on its 2025 session, its docket features several labor and employment cases that could shape the employment law world for years to come. From reverse discrimination claims to the intricacies of wage law exemptions and retiree rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the implications of the Court’s rulings will reach far and wide. My name is Ty Hyderally, I’m an employment lawyer practicing in New York and New Jersey, and as such, I’m closely following these cases to better guide employers and employees through their potential impact.

Here’s an overview of the key cases and what they mean for workplace policies and practices.

Reverse Discrimination Claims

The Court will address whether workers from majority backgrounds—such as white or heterosexual employees—face a higher bar in proving workplace discrimination. This issue arises from the case of Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who alleges that she was passed over for promotions and terminated due to her orientation, while less-qualified candidates from minority groups were favored. Previous court decisions have required majority-group plaintiffs to prove “background circumstances” indicating bias, but Ames argues this creates an unequal standard under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act​​.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Ames, it could broaden the scope of Title VII, increasing lawsuits challenging diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Employers should consider reviewing their DEI initiatives to ensure they are merit-based and defensible. Detailed documentation of hiring, promotion, and termination decisions will be crucial for reducing litigation risks.

Disability Bias and Retiree Rights

Another important case on the docket involves Karyn Stanley, a retired firefighter who claims her former employer discriminated against retirees with disabilities by offering them fewer benefits than other retirees. Stanley’s case raises a key question: Does the ADA protect retirees, or are its protections limited to current employees? Federal appeals courts are split on this issue, and the Supreme Court’s decision could establish a uniform standard​.

For employers, this case highlights the importance of equitable retiree benefits policies. Conducting an ADA compliance review for all benefit structures, including those applicable post-employment, can preempt potential claims. Employers must also educate HR teams on the risks of benefit discrimination and consider revising policies to ensure fairness for retirees with disabilities.

Wage Law Exemptions

The Supreme Court is also set to address the evidentiary standard for proving wage law exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In EMD Sales v. Carrera, the 4th Circuit upheld a higher burden of proof—“clear and convincing evidence”—for employers seeking to classify workers as exempt from overtime pay. Other circuits use a lower standard, which creates an inconsistency in the law​​.

Employers should proactively audit job classifications and ensure compliance with overtime pay requirements. Misclassification can lead to costly litigation, but implementing clear policies and maintaining accurate job descriptions can reduce risks. Employees, especially those in gray areas like outside sales, should be aware of their rights and how these rulings may affect their eligibility for overtime pay.

ERISA Claims

The Court will also decide the threshold for plaintiffs bringing claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In the case involving Cornell University, employees allege the university’s retirement plans charged excessive fees in violation of ERISA. The legal question is whether plaintiffs must show that fiduciaries intended to benefit third parties, such as plan administrators, to survive dismissal​​.

Employers managing retirement plans should conduct periodic fiduciary reviews to ensure all fees and transactions are reasonable and documented. This case highlights how important it is to be transparent in plan administration. Failure to comply with ERISA standards could lead to heightened scrutiny and significant financial liability.

Challenges to NLRB Structure

The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a challenge to the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) structure, leaving questions about the board’s enforcement authority unanswered. Businesses have argued that the NLRB’s administrative judges and members are improperly insulated from presidential removal, raising constitutional concerns​.

While the Court’s decision not to intervene maintains the status quo, employers should stay vigilant. Reviewing union policies and maintaining compliance with labor laws will help mitigate risks associated with NLRB investigations. This case also emphasizes the need for employers to stay informed about ongoing legal challenges that could reshape labor law enforcement.

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

The 2025 Supreme Court docket presents a complex set of challenges and opportunities for employers and employees alike. Employers should:

  • Review workplace policies: Evaluate DEI initiatives, classification practices, and retirement benefits for compliance and fairness.
  • Invest in legal counsel: Consult employment law experts to identify and address vulnerabilities.
  • Implement training programs: Make sure HR teams and managers are equipped to handle legal requirements effectively.

In the meantime, employees should:

  • Stay informed about their rights under evolving legal standards.
  • Consult legal experts when uncertain about workplace policies or benefits.

Navigating Legal Changes with Expert Guidance

As these pivotal cases are decided, the landscape of labor and employment law will undoubtedly shift. Employers and employees in New York, New Jersey, and beyond must be prepared to adapt to new standards and expectations. At my practice, I, Ty Hyderally, am committed to helping clients navigate these changes, ensuring compliance and advocating for workplace fairness.

Whether you’re an employer seeking to minimize legal risks or an employee striving to protect your rights, you need to stay informed. By working together, we can build workplaces that are not only legally compliant but also equitable and inclusive for all.

Resources

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/reverse-bias-wage-law-exemptions-top-us-supreme-courts-2025-labor-docket-2025-01-03/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/doj-v-dei-trumps-justice-department-likely-target-diversity-programs-2024-12-10/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/cornell-case-us-supreme-court-will-review-bar-some-erisa-claims-2024-10-04/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-weighs-higher-bar-exempting-workers-federal-wage-law-2024-11-05/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-wont-block-nlrb-case-pending-challenge-its-structure-2024-10-15/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-decide-if-retirees-can-sue-disability-bias-2024-06-24/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-decide-if-white-straight-workers-face-higher-bar-bias-lawsuits-2024-10-04/

Comments are closed.