Yesterday, this nation's highest court unanimously ruled that "majority group" plaintiffs – like white employees, heterosexual employees, and male employees – are no longer required to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to support their "reverse" employment discrimination claims. The heightened evidentiary standard, known as the "background circumstances rule," was only imposed against majority group plaintiffs and required that they provide additional evidence "to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court killed the "background circumstances" rule. It held that Marlean Ames, who alleged that her employer unlawfully discriminated against her under Title VII because of her heterosexuality, did not need to provide additional evidence beyond what a minority-group plaintiff was required to provide. There is "no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," explained the Court. Now, both majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs have to prove their discrimination claims under the same evidentiary framework. The Court reversed the summary-judgment dismissal of Ames's suit and remanded the case for the proper application of the now-clarified uniform evidentiary standard.
Because the heightened evidentiary bar is now obsolete, employers can expect more discrimination claims brought by people in majority groups.
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.
