The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected use of a special legal test for plaintiffs to prove illegal bias in reverse discrimination cases. Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services involved claims by a heterosexual employee that she was twice passed over for promotion in favor of homosexual coworkers, in violation of Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed the plaintiff’s claims using a "background circumstances" test that required her to demonstrate a pattern and practice of reverse discrimination against members of a protected majority classification. This demonstration was not required of minority employees alleging discrimination.
The Supreme Court found no basis in Title VII for differentiating between discrimination against majority and minority members of a protected class. Both sets of plaintiffs are subject to the same evidentiary standards necessary for their claims to proceed to trial. A concurring opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas went beyond the majority decision, questioning the use of the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework in employment discrimination cases.
The unanimous decision in this case reflects the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to establish separate standards for some Title VII litigants. While the decision should not make much practical difference to employers, it could encourage some employees to pursue reverse discrimination claims by requiring standard burdens of proof to establish their claims.
[View source.]
