We represent victims of reverse discrimination and anti-DEI whistleblowers

Over the past few months, a great deal of attention has been paid to the way the federal government enforces laws barring discrimination. Recent efforts to undo efforts relating to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) have led people to question whether efforts to assist one group actually constitute illegal discrimination against others not in that group. Bias against individuals from majority groups has often been referred to as “reverse discrimination,” and some plaintiffs who sought legal relief for this type of disparate treatment have had a greater legal burden than people within minority protected classes. 

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case captioned Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, in which a plaintiff is alleging sex and sexual orientation discrimination. As a heterosexual woman, Marleen Ames says that she did not get a deserved promotion and ultimately was demoted because LGBTQ co-workers received favorable treatment. 

In several federal circuits, including the Sixth where Ohio is located, plaintiffs in reverse discrimination cases must show that background circumstances exist to support the suspicion that their employer acts unusually by discriminating against majority groups. Had the situation been reversed and Ames were a member of the LGBTQ community, she would not have to satisfy this additional legal requirement. 

Critics argue that this “background circumstances” requirement is outdated, unnecessary and unfair to  majority-group plaintiffs. Title VII prohibits discrimination “because of” an individual’s protected characteristic, without distinguishing between majority and minority groups. Ames is arguing that requiring majority-group plaintiffs to meet an additional evidentiary burden undermines the statute’s purpose of ensuring equal treatment for all employees, regardless of their demographic group. 

Given that some circuits impose the background circumstances requirement and others do not, the Ames case was a worthy case for review by the Supreme Court, where oral arguments were held on February 26. Many observers believe that the justices are inclined to establish a uniform standard declaring that all employees, whether members of a majority or minority group, are held to the same evidentiary requirements when bringing discrimination claims.  

Though the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, has not yet ruled on the background circumstances requirement, a Supreme Court decision for Ames would likely make things easier for plaintiffs in reverse discrimination cases nationwide. Even if you are not a member of a minority group, if you have been victimized in the workplace due to a legally protected characteristic, you should contact Kardell Law Group. We deliver exceptional legal representation for clients in employment bias claims regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group.