The past few weeks have been busy with EEO developments in California and under federal law.

California—CRD Issues a New Age Discrimination Fact Sheet

In May 2025, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) issued a fact sheet addressing the legal protections against age discrimination in the workplace. Under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), those protections generally begin at 40 years of age, unless an employer discriminates against an applicant or employee based on the mistaken belief that they are at least 40 years of age.

The fact sheet lists the following examples of conduct that would violate the FEHA: 

• Excluding older people when hiring—for example, “Looking for someone young and energetic to join the team.”
• Asking about a candidate’s age before hiring—for example, an employer may not ask an applicant to share their age or date of birth on a job application or during an interview or other pre-hire conversation.
• Giving lower wages or benefits because of age—for example, an employer may not pay employees who are 40 years of age and older less than younger employees in the same role because the employer believes older employees are more financially secure and less likely to have costs related to student loans or a home mortgage.
• Denying a promotion because of an individual’s age
• Laying off or forcing retirement because of an individual’s age
• Making comments, jokes, or insults about age—for example, repeatedly making comments such as, “Okay, Boomer!”

Federal–U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Higher Standard for Reverse Discrimination Cases

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a federal appeals court had wrongly imposed an evidentiary standard in a reverse discrimination employment case brought under Title VII. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Ames, a heterosexual, claimed that she had not only been passed over for a new position with the Ohio Department of Youth Services but had also been demoted to a lower position than her current one with the new position and her current position being filled by homosexuals. These claims formed the basis of her allegation that she had suffered employment discrimination based on her sexual orientation—heterosexual.

Both lower federal courts rejected Ames’ claims because as a member of a majority group, she  failed to meet her additional prima facie burden of showing “background circumstances” to support her allegation that the employer engaged in “reverse discrimination.”

The Court held that the additional “background circumstances” requirement is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and other Supreme Court cases. The relevant provision of Title VII “makes it unlawful ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’” The Court determined that this language applies the same protections to everyone regardless of whether they are a member of a minority or majority group, and that “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority group plaintiffs alone.” Additionally, the Court pointed to several prior Supreme Court decisions in which the justices made clear that the standard for showing discrimination under Title VII “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”

Although the Ames decision does not affect the underlying legal or burden-shifting framework for Title VII employment discrimination cases, it does resolve a split among lower federal appeals courts as to the application of the “background circumstances” requirement. In effect, the decision affirms that the legal framework itself cannot be applied in a discriminatory manner depending on the protected status of the individual alleging employment discrimination. This decision also serves as a reminder for employers to review their current policies regarding internal complaints and other practices to ensure fairness.