REVERSE DISCRIMINATION – YES, IT’S A REAL THING!
Many of us have heard the term “reverse discrimination” for years now but what does it really mean? Better question—what does it mean under the law, especially for employees and employers? Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion helps put things in perspective related to this concept.
- Summary of the Underlying Case
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of an employee claiming that she was a victim of reverse discrimination after she was allegedly denied for a promotion because she is heterosexual. In the underlying case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the employee sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, after a lesbian woman was promoted over her. The employee also claimed she was later demoted because of her sexual orientation and replaced by a gay man. The employee brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 —the federal statute which prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, religion, national origin, and sex, which includes an employee’s sexual orientation.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal of the employee’s claims after finding that her allegations were insufficient to establish the “background circumstances” necessary to make an initial case of reverse discrimination. According to the Sixth Circuit, the “background circumstances” could have been, for example, evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority group.
- Key Points from the Opinion
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion and stated that the Supreme Court’s prior case law “makes clear that the standard for providing disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group… The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle.” Justice Jackson stated that the Sixth Circuit’s ruling imposed a higher standard against the employee and was inconsistent with the text of Title VII as the law does not distinguish between members of a minority group and members of a majority group. Indeed, every individual from either a majority or minority group is afforded the same protections under the law. The Supreme Court therefore sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- What Does This Mean for Employers and Business Leaders?
Employers and business leaders across the country should be mindful of this development; especially those who have previously viewed employment decisions related to majority group employees as less risky than those impacting minority group employees. Anyone involved in such employment decisions should ensure that they consider potential discrimination against any individual based on their race, gender or sexual orientation beforehand in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. If you have any questions about this case, please contact any member of Ice Miller’s Workplace Solutions Practice Group.
This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.