U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling Clarifies Standard for Reverse Discrimination Under Title VII

Ice Miller
Contact

Ice Miller

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of an employee claiming that she was a victim of reverse discrimination after she was allegedly denied a promotion because she is heterosexual. In the underlying case, the employee sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, after a lesbian woman was promoted over her. The employee also claimed she was later demoted because of her sexual orientation and replaced by a gay man. The employee brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—the federal statute which prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, religion, national origin, and sex, including an employee’s sexual orientation.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal of the employee’s claims after finding that her allegations were insufficient to establish the “background circumstances” necessary to make an initial case of reverse discrimination. According to the Sixth Circuit, the “background circumstances” could have been, for example, evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority group.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion and stated that the Supreme Court’s prior case law “makes clear that the standard for providing disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group…The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle.” Justice Jackson stated that the Sixth Circuit’s ruling imposed a higher standard against the employee and was inconsistent with the text of Title VII, as the law does not distinguish between members of a minority group and members of a majority group. Indeed, every individual from either a majority or minority group is afforded the same protections under the law. The Supreme Court therefore sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Employers across the country should be mindful of this development.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Ice Miller

Written by:

Ice Miller
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Ice Miller on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide