Back
Released July 31, 2025
Newsletter Highlights
- Effective June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that employees who belong to a majority group are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard – known as the “background circumstances” rule – to prove disparate treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court unanimously held that Title VII applies equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they are members of a minority or majority group, and that courts cannot impose additional proof requirements on majority-group plaintiffs.
- Effective October 1, 2025, California will enforce new regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) banning employers from using automated decision-making systems or AI tools that result in discriminatory outcomes. These rules, among the first of their kind, broadly define “automated-decision systems” and hold employers liable for biased results, including those from third-party vendors. Meanwhile, Texas took a narrower approach only prohibiting AI tools which intentionally discriminate against protected classes.
- Effective May 16, 2025, Colorado enacted the Kelly Loving Act (HB25-1312), amending the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) to clarify that gender expression discrimination includes an employee’s “Chosen Name” and “How the Individual Chooses to be Addressed.” The new law strengthens protections for employees who assert their preferred names and forms of address in the workplace, while also setting parameters to prevent misuse, such as prohibiting names with offensive language or frivolous purposes.
- Effective in 2025, Nebraska enacted a comprehensive bill (L.B. 150) that adds military and veteran status as protected categories under the state’s Fair Employment Practice Act and other anti-discrimination laws.
- Effective July 2025, Rhode Island enacted two significant workplace laws. H.B. 5841 expands the definition of “race” under the state’s Fair Employment Practices Act and related civil rights statutes to include traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles like locks, braids, twists, cornrows, Bantu knots, and Afros. Additionally, H.B. 5506 prohibits employers from disciplining or retaliating against employees who refuse to attend mandatory meetings or consume communications that convey the employer’s political or religious views, with narrow exceptions for legally required or job-essential communications.
- Effective July 1, 2025, Vermont’s expanded Parental and Family Leave Act (PFLA) broadens job-protected leave to include bereavement, domestic violence-related “safe leave,” and military service exigencies, while also expanding the definition of “family member” to cover nontraditional relationships. Similarly, effective January 1, 2026, Washington’s amendments to the Domestic Violence Leave Act extend leave and workplace safety accommodations to employees who are victims of hate crimes, aligning with the state’s broader protections against violence and discrimination.
Full Stories: Legislative, Regulatory and Compliance News
Supreme Court Strikes Down “Background Circumstances” Rule Under Title VII
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision clarifying that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals without imposing extra burdens on majority-group plaintiffs. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (No. 23-1039), the plaintiff, a heterosexual woman, alleged that she was discriminated against in favor of LGBTQ colleagues during a promotion process. Lower courts dismissed her claims, applying the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which required majority-group plaintiffs to provide additional evidence – such as statistical data or proof of bias – to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected the rule as incompatible with the text and intent of Title VII. “Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” she stated. The Court emphasized that discrimination claims must be analyzed based on whether individuals were treated differently due to race, sex, or other protected characteristics, rather than the plaintiff’s majority or minority status.
The decision may lead to an increase in so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits, as majority-group plaintiffs no longer face a higher threshold to proceed with claims. Many employers will reassess their workplace policies and DEI programs to ensure compliance and avoid practices that could be construed as favoring or disfavoring any group. The ruling aligns with the EEOC’s stance that all employees, regardless of majority or minority status, are entitled to equal protection under federal discrimination laws.
Read more: Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services (2025) | U.S. Supreme Court Decision No. 23-1039
California AI Employment Rules and Texas AI Governance Laws
On June 27, 2025, California’s Office of Administrative Law approved sweeping regulations under FEHA to govern employers’ use of artificial intelligence in hiring, testing, and promotion. Employers are explicitly prohibited from using any automated decision-making system – defined broadly to include AI and machine learning tools – that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, age, disability, religion, or other protected characteristics. The regulations clarify key terms such as “artificial intelligence” and “automated-decision system data” and impose strict liability on employers for the conduct of agents, vendors, or developers whose tools are found to produce biased outcomes. California’s move places it at the forefront of AI employment oversight, with requirements that surpass those in other states. To avoid legal risks, savvy employers will take steps to audit their AI tools for bias, ensure compliance with FEHA standards, and incorporate human oversight in decision-making processes.
In contrast, Texas has taken a narrower approach. The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (HB 2060), signed into law on June 18, 2025, does not impose new obligations on private employers or restrict their use of AI in employment decisions. TRAIGA only prohibits the use of AI systems that are developed or deployed “with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class.” Disparate impact alone cannot show an intent to discriminate.
Colorado Enacts the Kelly Loving Act to Strengthen Gender Expression Protections
On May 16, 2025, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed HB25-1312, known as the Kelly Loving Act, into law thereby amending the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). While CADA already prohibited discrimination based on gender expression, this amendment clarifies that gender expression explicitly includes both an employee’s chosen name and how the individual chooses to be addressed in professional settings. The law defines “Chosen Name” as a name requested by the individual in connection with their protected characteristics under CADA, including gender identity and expression. However, it specifies that a chosen name cannot include offensive language or be selected for frivolous purposes – terms left undefined, likely requiring future agency or judicial interpretation.
Notably, earlier drafts of the bill included language prohibiting “misgendering,” defined as using pronouns inconsistent with a person’s gender identity or expression. While this language was removed before final passage, the law still allows misgendering to serve as evidence of gender expression discrimination. Employers in Colorado will be reviewing and updating policies to ensure compliance with these expanded protections and to minimize potential claims under CADA.
Read more: Colorado HB25-1312 – Kelly Loving Act (2025)
Nebraska Expands Anti-Discrimination Law to Include Military Servicemembers
In its 2025 legislative session, Nebraska passed a sweeping measure (L.B. 150) that modernizes multiple sections of state law while expanding anti-discrimination protections for current or former members of the military. A key component of L.B. 150 is the amendment of the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA) and related statutes to prohibit discrimination based on military or veteran status in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Employers seeking to comply with this new law will ensure that policies, training, and hiring practices reflect these expanded protections for current and former members of the military.
Read more: Nebraska L.B. 150 (2025) – Military Status Protections
Rhode Island Expands Workplace Protections of Race and Employee Speech
In July 2025, Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee signed H.B. 5841 into law, expanding the state’s Fair Employment Practices Act, Civil Rights Act of 1990, and school discrimination statutes to define “race” to include traits historically associated with race. This includes hair texture and protective hairstyles such as locks, braids, twists, cornrows, Bantu knots, and Afros. The law ensures that discrimination or adverse actions based on these characteristics are explicitly recognized as racial discrimination, aligning Rhode Island with the national CROWN Act movement. Many employers, schools, and public entities will be reviewing their grooming and appearance policies and training, to ensure they reflect this broadened definition and prevent both overt and subtle forms of hair-based discrimination.
Additionally, on July 2, 2025, Rhode Island enacted H.B. 5506, which protects employees from disciplinary action or retaliation for refusing to attend employer-sponsored meetings or communications primarily designed to promote political or religious views. The law defines political matters to include elections, political parties, legislation, and union-related issues,
while religious matters encompass religious beliefs and practices. Exceptions exist for job-related instructions, legally required communications, academic discussions at universities, and faith-based organizations addressing religious topics.
Vermont and Washington Expand Leave Rights for Employees
Effective July 1, 2025, Vermont’s Parental and Family Leave Act (PFLA) significantly expands job-protected unpaid leave to cover new qualifying reasons, including bereavement, domestic violence (“safe leave”), and military service exigencies. The law, enacted as H.461, broadens the definition of “family member” to include domestic partners, grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings, ensuring that a variety of family structures have equal access to caregiving leave. Employees may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for their own or a family member’s serious health condition, childbirth recovery, or foster child care.
Bereavement leave is capped at two weeks, while safe leave allows victims or family members affected by domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to access time off for counseling, legal support, relocation, and safety planning. Covered employers include all Vermont businesses with at least 10 employees (or 15 employees for family leave), and employees may use accrued paid leave balances during PFLA leave.
In Washington, Senate Bill 5101 expands the state’s Domestic Violence Leave Act to include workers who are victims of hate crimes, effective January 1, 2026. The law allows victims to take reasonable leave to obtain medical care, legal assistance, counseling, or social services, or to relocate for safety. Employers are required to provide reasonable safety accommodations – such as schedule changes or workplace modifications – unless doing so would create an undue hardship. The bill defines hate crimes under RCW 9A.36.080, including crimes involving online harassment or threats, and mandates strict confidentiality of employee information. Verification of hate crime victim status may be provided through police reports, protective orders, or written statements from service providers. The law aims to ensure that victims can maintain their employment and economic security while addressing the emotional, physical, and legal consequences of hate crimes.
Disclaimer: This information is not intended as legal advice. Please consult with legal counsel to ensure your organization’s compliance with applicable legal requirements.