It is now well-established that “majority groups” are protected from discrimination under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. These so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits are often brought by Caucasians, men, and heterosexuals in workforces predominated by marginalized groups.
This week, the Supreme Court confirmed that no different legal standard applies in reverse discrimination cases. The Sixth Circuit had articulated a standard requiring that plaintiffs in reverse discrimination cases under Title VII also show “background circumstances” to support the suspicion that the employer had a tendency to discriminate against majority groups. The Supreme Court reasoned that, because Title VII does not distinguish between “majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” majority-group plaintiffs cannot be held to a heightened evidentiary standard.
While the legal standards (e.g., for summary judgment or motions to dismiss) are the same, as a practical matter, reverse discrimination suits may be more challenging for plaintiffs to prove. Juries may be less inclined to believe that an employer discriminated against a group that has historically been treated more favorably. Of course, in today’s political climate—with more prevalent “anti-woke” ideologies—reverse discrimination cases may become more successful. Because jury demographics are of particular import in these cases, plaintiffs may want to consider alternate forums before filing, and defendants may want to consider removing to federal court if the jury pool is preferable.
Held: The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.
