Our Feed

As we round out 2025, the employment law experts at Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes reflect on an eventful and unpredictable year in civil-rights law. Civil rights in employment has been a hot topic in 2025, and we expect that to continue into 2026. In this two-part article series, the employment law experts at Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC will dive into the changes that came in 2025 and provide practical solutions to mitigate the new risks of liability on the horizon.

This e-letter explores the changing landscape of employment law, and what these changes mean for your organization.

EMPLOYMENT LAW BASICS

Protections against discrimination and harassment in the workplace primarily flow through a few key statutes on both the state and federal levels. Federally, the key protections come from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII protects employees from discrimination or harassment on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin. Title VII also protects employees from being retaliated against for reporting or opposing potential discrimination and harassment on those bases. Mistreatment that is unrelated to those listed categories is not prohibited by Title VII. The law is enforced through courts of law and by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

In Michigan, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) operates very similarly to Title VII with a wider range of protected characteristics. The ELCRA prohibits employment discrimination or harassment on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, height, weight, or marital status. The law is enforced through courts of law and by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (“MDCR”).

CASE LAW UPDATE

(1) Title VII – Trends & Takeaways

The majority of 2025 caselaw developments involving Title VII stem from COVID-19 era employer vaccine mandates, which are finally moving through the federal circuits. (Let this be a reminder how far behind the courts lag from reality!) However, there are still several decisions that have had a significant impact on employers’ Title VII obligations.

No More Requirement to Show Background Circumstances in Majority Group Discrimination Claim. No other case has had a greater impact on Title VII than Ames v Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, 145 S Ct 1540 (2025). In Ames, a straight woman applied and interviewed for a newly created management position with the Ohio Youth Services juvenile correctional system. She was not hired for the position and subsequently demoted. A lesbian woman was selected for the new management position and the plaintiff’s former position was filled by a gay man. She filed suit claiming that her sexual orientation was the reason she (1) was not hired for the management position and (2) was demoted.

The lower courts ruled in favor of the employer, finding the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, by not providing “background circumstances” or statistical disparities that show the Ohio Youth Services was the rare employer who discriminates against members of majority groups (straight people in this case). The United States Supreme Court overruled the lower courts, finding that the text of Title VII does not make any distinction between members of minority or majority groups. Therefore, the Court reasoned, requiring plaintiffs who are members of majority groups to present “background circumstances” was not supported by the law, was inflexible and no longer required.

Religious Discrimination Claims Getting More Attention—And Traction? Not only has religious discrimination been a primary concentration of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), but there have been significant changes in how courts handle religious accommodation claims under Title VII.

In Groff v Dejoy, 600 US 447 (2023), the Supreme Court interpreted Title VII’s requirement that employers accommodate the religious practice of their employees unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Historically, employees claiming a refusal to accommodate their religious beliefs faced an uphill battle because employers were let off the hook for accommodation unless there was “more than a de minimis cost” in making the accommodation. The Court rejected that standard for denying requested religious accommodation under Title VII and established the undue hardship requirement. An “undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” “tak[ing] into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” As a result of the opinion in Groff, the EEOC updated its guidance, which now reflects that employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, “unless doing so would cause a burden that is substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business.”[1]

The Sixth Circuit has expanded on the Groff holding, providing employers with additional clarity.

• It is still permissible to refer additionally to other factors when considering an accommodation request, such as safety risk or loss of efficiency. [2]
• Employers may rely on projections; it is not necessary to prove costs have, or would have, actually been incurred. [3]
• It is not necessary to actually experience the hardship for it to be too great to permit the accommodation. [4]

Although religious discrimination claims have historically been a small percentage of claims brought by the EEOC, it has been and likely will continue to be a key focus of the agency in 2026 and beyond. [5] Since January 2025, the EEOC has been extremely active in protecting workers’ religious rights, including:

• Suit against the Rock Snowpark after an employee was fired over faith-based social media posts, which made no mention of the workplace or coworkers. [6]
• Suit against timeshare companies under the Marriott umbrella, alleging that an employer who fails to accommodate a Seventh-Day Adventist’s request to avoid Saturday shifts, violates Title VII. [7]
• Suit against Apple, alleging a Title VII violation for its failure to accommodate a Jewish employee’s request to not work Fridays and Saturdays to observe the sabbath. [8]
• Settling a lawsuit (for $217,500) on behalf of a Muslim employee whose request for an extended mid-day break to attend Friday prayers was denied. [9]

What Does it all Mean? Litigation is likely to increase in the areas of religious discrimination and claims made by members of majority groups (sometimes called “reverse discrimination” claims).

Employers will likely see an uptick in claims from employees in majority groups because those claims are now treated the same as all other claims, which is to say these claims are easier to make and can more easily survive the early stages of investigation and litigation. Closely review your programs, practices and policies to ensure these are being applied neutrally, and do not inadvertently create unneeded risk of liability.

Employers will also likely face an increase in religious discrimination claims, as it appears to be a target and a chief priority of the EEOC. Carefully evaluate how to handle requests for religious accommodation, because it is more difficult for employers to prove that a religious accommodation constitutes an undue burden. Be mindful that citing only minor costs or inconvenience is no longer a basis to reject an accommodation request and will likely lead to increased exposure to legal risks. Train managers and supervisors on how to evaluate these requests under the new standards, and document, document, document, the interactive process. If a request is denied, be sure the denial is supported by a clear demonstration of the substantial impact the accommodation will have on your organization’s business operations. Your organization’s size and structure, as well as the cost implications of the accommodation, operational disruptions it causes, co-worker implications and alternative options, all must be considered when evaluating an accommodation request.

(2) Expansion of the ELCRA

Michigan’s civil rights law, the ELCRA is now being construed more broadly, to include classifications of individuals never previously afforded protections under the Act. Two recent cases reflect the courts’ willingness to expand protections, in contrast with the more limited application of Title VII to true “employees.”

In Luvene v Pro Carpentry LLC, 2025 Mich App LEXIS 4750 (June 17, 2025), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an independent contractor’s claim of race-based discrimination and retaliation could proceed past the early stages of litigation. The court held that the appropriate inquiry is not the employment status of the individual, but instead, whether the plaintiff can establish that the organization “affected or controlled a term, condition or privilege of employment.” In this case, the court held that since the company’s ability to hire, pay, and terminate plaintiff demonstrated the requisite control over the independent contractor’s “term, condition or privilege of employment.” The court’s analysis is alarming, because every independent contractor relationship involves some measure of control over the contractor. This also cuts deeply against one of the key benefits of the independent-contractor arrangement – limited employment liability—and makes this a case to keep an eye on while the lower court actually decides the case on the merits now that the case must go forward.

ELCRA protections again were expanded in the case City of Wayne v Miller, 2024 Mich App LEXIS 4382 (June 6, 2024). In this case, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that a former elected city council member could bring a claim alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. When determining that the ELCRA’s protections are not limited to employees, the court relied heavily on the fact that the Michigan legislature chose to use words such as “person,” or “individual,” instead of “employee” in drafting the ELCRA

What Does This Mean? While Title VII clearly does not apply its protections to elected officials, independent contractors, or other non-employees, the courts are willing to afford those protections more broadly under the ELCRA. With the expansion in scope, you must now ensure management personnel understand that ELCRA protections extend beyond W-2 employees and maintain consistent enforcement of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment standards across all workers.

(3) A Quick Note on Handbooks and Application Forms

Next up in our labor and employment e-letter series we will be exploring best practices, pitfalls and substantive changes employers should consider when evaluating employee handbooks. However, one area that has been heavily litigated over the last year is the inclusion of a limitations period in employment applications and handbooks. These are provisions within a handbook, employment agreement or other document that shorten the time an employee has to file a lawsuit for something arising out of their employment.

In King v McClaren Corporation, 2025 Mich App LEXIS 800 (2025), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a six-month limitations period for employment claims contained conspicuously in an employment application was binding and found a former employee’s claims of discrimination and retaliation to be untimely. But several months later, the Michigan Supreme Court held in Rayford v Am House Roseville LLC, 2025 Mich LEXIS 1400 (2025), that a conspicuous six-month limitation period contained in an employee handbook was unenforceable, because the handbook constituted a contract of adhesion.

Further, in Paris v MacAllister Mach Co Inc, the Michigan Court of Appeals heard another case involving a shortened limitations period found within an employment application. 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 6678. In Paris, the Court of Appeals determined that an employment application was likely a contract of adhesion and remanded the case back to the trial court to decide based on the fact that the Rayford decision had not been rendered when the trial court made its decision. We expect that the Court of Appeals was signaling to the trial court (and everyone else) that shortened limitations periods could not be accomplished via employment application.

We therefore advise, for the sake of clarity, these provisions be removed from policies, handbooks, or applications. If you would like to explore shortening the limitations period for employment claims, that should be accomplished through a written employment agreement.

CONCLUSION

Based on developments at both the state and federal level, employers are encouraged to review their policies and practices in line with the developments outlined in this article. The employment law experts at Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC will continue tracking these matters and will update our clients as these developments emerge. Our employment law experts also stand ready to evaluate existing policies and practices and offer practical solutions to the novel legal problems facing our employer clients.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series, which will tackle federal Executive Orders on employment law and DEI practices. Coming soon!

[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination

[2] See Speer v UCOC LLC, 2024 US Dist LEXIS 179033 (2024)

[3] See Virts v Consol Freightways Corp, 285 F3d 508

[4] See Crider v Univ of Tenn, 492 Fed Appx 609

[5] EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has indicated as much, stating “[d]uring the previous administration, workers’ religious protections often took a backseat to woke policies. Under my leadership, the EEOC is restoring evenhanded enforcement of Title VII – ensuring that workers are not forced to choose between their paycheck and their faith.” https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/200-days-eeoc-action-protect-religious-freedom-work

[6] https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-rock-snowpark-religious-discrimination

[7] https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-marriott-vacations-worldwide-corporation-and-marriott-ownership-resorts-inc

[8] https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-apple-religious-discrimination-and-retaliation

[9] https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/logic-staffing-pay-217500-eeoc-religious-discrimination-retaliation-lawsuit

By: Thomas Forgione

This publication is intended for educational purposes only. This communication highlights specific areas of law and is not legal advice. The reader should consult an attorney to determine how the information applies to any specific situation.