Connor Brady

Associate

call

225-383-3796

fax

225-343-9612

mail

cbrady@keoghcox.com

id_card

Add to Contacts

link

Copy Link to Page

About

Connor Brady joined Keogh Cox in 2025 after clerking with the firm. He earned his Juris Doctor and Degree in Comparative Law from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at Louisiana State University in 2025, where he graduated Cum Laude. While in law school, Connor served as a Senior Editor for the Journal for Energy Law and Resources and earned multiple CALI Excellence for the Future Awards for achieving the highest grade in his classes, including Evidence, Sales, Lease, Advanced Obligations, and Employment Discrimination. Recognized as both a Paul M. Hebert Scholar and Dean’s Scholar, Connor was also awarded the T.J. Moran Scholarship and Dean’s Scholarship. He also competed in the Tullis Moot Court Competition, was a finalist in the Client Legal Interviewing and Counseling Competition, and gained courtroom experience as a Supreme Court Rule XX Special Assistant District Attorney. Connor is a native of Baton Rouge, and his practice relates to a broad range of civil litigation matters.

Practice Areas

Education

J.D./D.C.L., Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, 2025
- Cum Laude
- Paul M. Hebert Scholar
- Dean’s Scholar
- CALI Excellence for the Future Awards
  - Evidence
  - Employment Discrimination
  - Sale, Lease, and Advanced Obligations
‍
B.A., Political Science, Louisiana State University, 2022
- President’s List

Admissions

Louisiana, 2025
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, 2025
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025
U.S. District Court for Middle District of Louisiana, 2025

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Burden for Majority-Group Discrimination Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified an important issue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court addressed whether employees who belong to “majority groups” must meet a higher burden by proving “background circumstances” when bringing discrimination claims. The Court unanimously held that they do not.

The case involved an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, who alleged she was denied a promotion and was later demoted because of her sexual orientation. The plaintiff is heterosexual, and her supervisor is homosexual. When the plaintiff sought the promotion, the position ultimately was awarded to a homosexual woman. After her demotion, plaintiff’s position also was filled by a homosexual man.

The plaintiff filed suit under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics, including sex. The district court dismissed her claims. It applied a rule requiring “majority-group” plaintiffs, i.e., plaintiffs who are not part of a minority group, to prove additional “background circumstances” suggesting the defendant is “the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” employees.

The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the lower court’s ruling. The Court focused on the statutory text of Title VII, which protects “any individual” from discrimination. The statute does not distinguish between majority and minority groups.

The Court held Title VII does not impose a higher evidentiary burden on plaintiffs who are part of a majority group. Therefore, the “background circumstances” rule applied by the lower courts imposed an additional evidentiary burden on majority group plaintiffs that was inconsistent with the statute.

This decision resolved a split among lower courts regarding this issue and confirmed that Title VII discrimination claims should be evaluated equally for all employees.

Reference:

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303, 145 S. Ct. 1540, 221 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2025).

While we appreciate and look forward to your inquiry, please review the following before you decide whether to click "ACCEPT."