(Scypre.com) – In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that individuals from majority groups, such as heterosexuals or white people, do not need to meet a higher evidentiary standard to pursue workplace discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case centered on Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. Ames claimed she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian colleague and later demoted, with her position filled by a gay man.
Previously, courts in 20 states and the District of Columbia required majority-group plaintiffs to provide “background circumstances” indicating that their employer was unusually inclined to discriminate against majority groups. This additional burden made it more challenging for individuals like Ames to succeed in discrimination lawsuits.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Court, stated that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of their majority or minority status. She emphasized that imposing a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs is inconsistent with the statute’s text and the Court’s precedent.
While the decision did not directly address diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted in a concurring opinion that some employers have engaged in practices that could be perceived as discriminatory against majority groups under the guise of promoting diversity.
The ruling has significant implications for employment discrimination law, potentially leading to an increase in “reverse discrimination” claims. It also reflects the Court’s continued scrutiny of policies and practices related to DEI and affirmative action.
Ames expressed hope that the decision would ensure fair treatment for all individuals, stating, “Discrimination is discrimination. This will hopefully help anyone who feels they’ve been discriminated against to get a fair shake in the courtroom.”
The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, now returns to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
This landmark decision underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to the principle that anti-discrimination laws protect all individuals equally, setting a precedent that may influence future cases involving claims of reverse discrimination.