In a moment of consensus, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided to lower the legal hurdle for individuals in majority groups to file discrimination lawsuits. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Court determined that members of majority groups suing their employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the federal law which prohibits workplace discrimination based on categories such as race and sex) are not required to demonstrate "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."
The case was brought by Marlean Ames who worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over two decades. She claimed she was passed over for a promotion and subsequently demoted in favor of LGBTQ+ colleagues because she is heterosexual.
On its face, Title VII does not draw distinctions based on whether a person claiming discrimination is a member of a majority group, but approximately half the circuit courts of appeal had written in a requirement that a majority group plaintiff prove unique "background circumstances" to bring a discrimination claim. Applying this additional hurdle, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ms. Ames because she failed to satisfy the "background circumstances" requirement.
Penning the Supreme Court's opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concluded that Title VII "does not impose such a heightened standards on majority-group plaintiffs." The Court held that the law "does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group" and repudiated the "background circumstances" rule as one which "effectively requires majority-group plaintiffs (and only majority-group plaintiffs) to produce certain type of evidence – such as statistical proof or information about relevant decisionmaker's protected traits – that would not otherwise be required to make out a prima facie case." Justice Jackson concluded: "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' – without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group – Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority group plaintiffs alone."
Ames will undoubtedly spur increased litigation by majority-plaintiff groups for what is known as "reverse discrimination," or a claim that the employer favors minority-group employees over majority-group employees. Employers should take the following steps to help avoid these claims:
- Remind managers that all employment decisions must be based factors like merit or performance rather than protected characteristics like race, sex or sexual orientation.
- Don't overlook adverse impacts on majority group employees when making employment or policy decisions.
- Review training materials and employee handbooks (including DEI policies), with a focus on discrimination, harassment, implicit bias, etc., to ensure they do not provide preferential treatment for, or exclude, any particular group.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
