Graphic Media Alliance

SCOTUS Scraps Extra Hurdle in Majority-Group Bias Claims: 5 Ways That Things Will Change for Employers

The US Supreme Court just unanimously ruled that plaintiffs alleging workplace discrimination under Title VII are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard just because they have “majority-group” status. Today’s landmark decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services eliminates the additional requirements previously imposed by several federal appellate courts that made it harder for majority-group plaintiffs, such as heterosexual or White workers, to prove discrimination. This significant decision, which does away with extra steps for so-called “reverse” discrimination claims, will most likely result in an increase in workplace bias claims in many parts of the country. What are the five ways that things will change in this new era of discrimination litigation?

Allegations in a Nutshell

• Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was employed for roughly 15 years by the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS), the state’s juvenile corrections system.
• In 2019, Ames applied for a promotion, but DYS instead hired a gay woman for the role.
• DYS also demoted her and reduced her wages by nearly $20 per hour, replacing her with a gay man.
• Both of these decisions were made by heterosexual individuals.
• After filing a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Ames filed a Title VII lawsuit against the Ohio DYS, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation.

What Do You Need to Know About Title VII?

• You probably already know that Title VII bars discrimination against workers because of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County held that “because of . . . sex” includes discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
• Typically, workers only need to show the following four steps to advance the ball in a Title VII claim: (1) they are a member of a protected class, (2) they were subject to an adverse employment decision, (3) they were qualified for the relevant position, and (4) their employer treated more favorably a similarly qualified person who was not a member of the same protected class.
• But some federal appellate courts (the 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits) required majority-group plaintiffs – those advancing what some call “reverse” discrimination claims – to jump over an additional hurdle. In those circuits, such plaintiffs must also show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

SCOTUS Scraps Additional Hurdle, Opens Door for More Litigation ...

How’d We Do With Our Predictions? ...

Implications for Employers ...

Read full article