In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first questions a court asks is whether an individual is in a class protected by Title VII (related to race, color, religion, sex [including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation], and national origin) or other anti-discrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disability Act.
More recently, the question has become, “can a member of ‘the majority’ also be a victim of discrimination?” According to the United States Supreme Court, the short answer is yes, and those claims have to be treated identically to claims from members of minority groups.
Ames: Case Details and Decision
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the plaintiff, a heterosexual female, brought a discrimination suit against her employer after she failed to receive a promotion that went to a gay individual. She was later demoted, and her position was given to another gay individual. Although acknowledging that even the majority can be part of a protected class, the lower courts dismissed her case because, in their opinion, a member of the majority must show more evidence to prove their case than a member of the minority. The Supreme Court disagreed.
In holding that all claims have to be analyzed “equally,” the Court first pointed to Title VII’s plain language – it is unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Title VII simply does not focus on groups but individuals.
Opinion: End of McDonnell Douglas Scrutiny?
One of the most interesting parts of the opinion comes from Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion. In Justice Thomas’ view, courts should be analyzing individual discrimination claims in a completely different manner from the way we have analyzed these claims for 50 years. Courts have traditionally used what is called the McDonnell Douglas framework when analyzing these claims.
This framework consists of three steps:
- the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination;
- the burden then shifts to the employer “to articulate some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason” for the adverse action; and
- the plaintiff is then given an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were not true but a pretext for discrimination.
Justice Thomas opines that the McDonnell Douglas framework was supposed to be used in bench trials and not jury trials – the test simply does not fit neatly when analyzing all types of discrimination claims. He encourages courts to simply address the ultimate question of whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee. Justice Thomas then concluded that “litigants and lower courts are free to proceed without the McDonnell Douglas framework.”
For the past 50 years, many courts have relied upon McDonnell Douglas when deciding summary judgment motions. Should lower courts proceed without utilizing McDonnell Douglas, it is likely that many more cases will be able to survive summary judgment and get their case in front of a jury.
