High Court Eases ‘Reverse Discrimination’ Claims in Ohio

    0
    0

    In a significant ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court has facilitated more accessible pathways for lawsuits concerning alleged reverse discrimination, aligning with an Ohio woman who alleges she was overlooked for a promotion and later demoted due to her sexual orientation as a straight person.

    This decision is vital as it impacts legal proceedings in 20 states and Washington, D.C., where courts have historically imposed stringent requirements for majority group members, such as white and heterosexual individuals, when pursuing discrimination claims under federal law.

    Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that federal civil rights legislation does not differentiate between majority and minority groups. She stated, “By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”

    The ruling emerged from a legal challenge by Marlean Ames, an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over two decades. Despite concurring with Jackson, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion, highlighted instances where prestigious employers have discriminated against those deemed part of majority groups.

    In his opinion, Thomas, supported by Justice Neil Gorsuch, referenced a brief by America First Legal, arguing that American employers have been fixated on diversity and inclusion initiatives. These views echo actions by former President Donald Trump, who has moved against DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies within federal frameworks, although some of these initiatives have faced temporary federal court blocks.

    Federal bodies have swiftly adapted to these new directives, aiming to eliminate discrimination against individuals from majority groups. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission focuses on abolishing all forms of race discrimination, emphasizing the inclusion of majority group cases over others, such as those involving discrimination against transgender individuals.

    Justice Jackson’s opinion did not delve into DEI matters but focused on Ames’ claims of discrimination due to her heterosexuality, with positions she sought being awarded to LGBTQ individuals instead. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids sex discrimination in employment, was central to Ames’ case. Initially, both a trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against her.

    The 6th Circuit is known for imposing additional proof requirements on individuals like Ames, necessitating evidence of bias or patterns of discrimination against majority group members. The appellate court had previously noted the lack of such evidence presented by Ames.

    However, Justice Jackson argued that this extra requirement contradicts the essence of Title VII and prior judicial interpretations of the law. This unanimous decree from the Supreme Court seeks to set a standard ensuring equitable treatment for all, regardless of their majority or minority status.