SCOTUS Bans Higher Discrimination Bar for ‘Majority Group’ Plaintiffs

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on Thursday, June 5, issued a unanimous ruling that will make it easier for workers to file “reverse discrimination” lawsuits against their employer.

In a 9-0 decision, the court sided with the plaintiff in the case Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Central to this litigation was the legal question: Do members of a “majority group” have equal protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or need to meet a higher standard in cases involving related discrimination?

Title VII prohibits unfair treatment (inside and outside of work-related contexts) of individuals based on their race, religion, national origin and sex — including sexual orientation. Within work contexts, this could include alleged discrimination for decisions around hiring/firing, promotions/demotions, base salaries, merit increases, bonus allocation, benefits programs and more. While primarily applied historically to address the biased treatment of individuals representing various minority classes, the law itself does not mention the terms “minority” or “majority,” let alone how it may be applied to such groups.

Background on the Ames Case

The petitioner in the originating case, Marlean Ames, had sued her employer in 2020, claiming she was denied a promotion and later demoted because she is heterosexual. In her lawsuit, Ames stated she had a gay supervisor when she was passed over for the promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and demoted, with a pay cut, in favor of a gay man.

In her complaint, Ames asserted eight claims:

Gender and sexual orientation discrimination pursuant to Title VII;
Hostile work environment based on sexual orientation and age under Title VII;
Retaliation under Title VII;
Age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967;
Violations of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;
Age discrimination under Ohio state codes;
Gender discrimination under Ohio states codes; and,
Hostile work environment under Ohio state codes.

In the initial hearing, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 16, 2023, granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that “Ames lacked evidence of ‘background circumstances’ necessary to establishing her prima facie case for her claim based on sexual orientation,” and that she “lacked evidence of pretext for purposes of her sex-discrimination claim.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision on Dec. 4, 2023.

The Gravity of the Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court’s June 5 decision vacated the district court and appellate rulings. Most importantly, it impacts active lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where courts had implemented a higher standard when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Federal appeals courts based in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, D.C., had recently applied the standard set by the Sixth Circuit.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law does not draw a distinction between members of majority and minority groups. In the 25-page opinion, 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. … [Case law] makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas stated, “Title VII bars employment discrimination against ‘any individual’ ‘because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.’ Thus, to state the obvious, the statute bars discrimination against ‘any individual’ on the grounds specified therein. … [Prior ruling/interpretation] plainly contravenes that statutory command by imposing a higher burden on some individuals based solely on their membership in a particular demographic group.”

The Thomas addendum also footnoted a prior brief in which he opined, “[A] number of this nation’s largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those

they deem members of so-called majority groups. American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans.”

In providing guidance to employers, the Glennon Law Firm stated that the Supreme Court’s removal of the heightened standard “could lead to an increase in reverse discrimination claims, particularly as [DEI] programs continue to evolve across industries. Employers could see a rise in lawsuits by majority-group employees alleging that promotions, demotions or terminations were influenced by protected characteristics rather than merit.”

Editor’s Note: Additional Content

For more information and resources related to this article, see the pages below, which offer quick access to all WorldatWork content on these topics: