One of the main laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It bars covered employers from discriminating based on the race, color, religion, national origin, or sex of an employee or job applicant. “Sex” includes pregnancy, and it also includes sexual orientation and gender identity after a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020. People usually see Title VII as a shield for minority groups, ensuring that they get equal opportunities in the workplace.
However, “reverse discrimination” claims occasionally arise. This means that an employer allegedly discriminated against an employee or job applicant because they were part of a majority group. For example, a business could face liability under Title VII for not hiring someone because they’re white, Christian, male, or straight. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a case last week that involved the last of those scenarios.
Marlean Ames had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for 15 years before applying for a new management position in 2019. The agency interviewed her but chose a lesbian woman for the position. Shortly afterward, the Department demoted Ames from her position as program administrator. It hired a gay man for that job. Ames, who is straight, sued her employer under Title VII. She argued that she missed out on the management position and subsequently got demoted because she’s straight. In other words, she alleged reverse discrimination based on her sexual orientation.
Title VII cases alleging intentional discrimination against an individual employee start with what’s called a “prima facie case.” The employee needs to produce enough evidence to support an inference that the employer had a discriminatory motive. If the employee does this, the employer needs to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. This shifts the burden back to the employee to prove that the stated reason was a pretext.
The prima facie case generally doesn’t pose a high hurdle for an employee. It’s just the first step that gets the ball rolling. However, the federal district court ruled that Ames didn’t clear this hurdle. It said that employees suing for reverse discrimination need to do more than employees bringing ordinary discrimination claims. Specifically, they must produce evidence of “background circumstances” suggesting that the employer is the rare employer that discriminates against members of a majority group. Ames hadn’t done this, so the court tossed out her case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed, deepening a division among federal appellate courts over whether employees bringing reverse discrimination claims face a higher burden than members of minority groups. Last Thursday, the Supreme Court resolved this conflict in favor of employees like Ames.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the “background circumstances” rule. Jackson explained that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII doesn’t vary based on whether the employee is a member of a majority or minority group. The law protects everyone equally from discrimination in the workplace. Jackson also noted that the “background circumstances” rule requires employees bringing reverse discrimination claims to produce certain types of evidence. This rigid approach runs counter to the Supreme Court’s view of what it takes to make a prima facie case, which has long emphasized flexibility.
This decision doesn’t necessarily mean that Ames will win her case. It just means that the lower court will need to reconsider the evidence that she submitted under the ordinary standard for a prima facie case. However, the ruling will make it easier overall for employees of majority groups to hold employers liable for reverse discrimination.
Photo Credit: Bob Pool / Shutterstock.com