The United States Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that so-called “reverse discrimination” must be treated the same as any other kind of discrimination.
Authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court’s opinion states that members of a majority group do not have to produce more evidence than those who belong to a minority group when bringing a case against their employer under Title VII.
Part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
In applying this law, the Sixth Circuit has established a “background circumstances” rule that requires members of majority groups “to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard” when bringing a Title VII discrimination case, seeking proof that the defendant is a “rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group.”
The Court’s June 5 ruling found that this standard “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedent.”
“Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority
group,” the Court wrote. “The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle.”
In addition to the Court’s relatively brief, ten-page unanimous opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas authored a somewhat lengthier concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch intended to “highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks.”
“Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts,” the concurring opinion said. “The ‘background circumstances’ rule—correctly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon.”
“This rule is a product of improper judicial lawmaking,” the concurring Justices argue. “Applying their own ‘common sense,’ these judges determined that extra evidence is required to prove discrimination when a Title VII plaintiff is white.”
The concurring opinion then goes on to suggest that the “workabl[ity] and useful[ness]” of the Supreme court’s own model for evaluating discrimination cases may be reconsidered in the future.
“The Court today assumes without deciding that the McDonnell Douglas framework is an appropriate tool for making that determination,” the concurring opinion said. “But, the judge-made McDonnell Douglas framework has no basis in the text of Title VII. And, as I have previously explained, lower courts’ extension of this doctrine into the summary-judgment context has caused ‘significant confusion’ and ‘troubling outcomes on the ground.'”
Click Here to Read the Supreme Court’s Full Opinion
At the center of the lawsuit that spurred this decision was a heterosexual woman named Marlean Ames who sued her homosexual boss for allegedly passing over her for a promotion in 2017 in favor of a homosexual woman.
Ames was then demoted to the secretarial position she had when she first joined the Ohio Department of Youth Services’ juvenile correctional system in 2004, resulting in a significant pay cut. A homosexual man was hired to fill her previous role as program administrator.
A Title VII lawsuit was then filed by Ames against her employer, alleging that she was denied a promotion and demoted due to her sexual orientation as a straight woman.
“We wanted to make sure that the same laws and standards apply to everyone,” Xiao Wang, who represented Ames and who is the director of the University of Virginia School of Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, told CNN. “This Supreme Court ruling makes it easier for courts to root out unlawful discrimination in the workplace.”
“The court made clear that this case is not over,” said Dominic Binkley, a spokesperson for Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. “We look forward to fully pressing those arguments as the case moves forward because the Ohio Department of Youth Services did not engage in unlawful discrimination.”
The ruling issued by the Supreme Court this past week does not necessarily mean that Ames will ultimately win her case, instead it removes a hurdle both for her and others belonging to a majority demographic that are looking to bring a Title VII case against their employers.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Ames’ case has been vacated and was remanded to the lower court for a proper application of Title VII in accordance with this ruling.
