Midwest Chick's Place

In a totally surprising ruling by the US Supreme Court, they removed the ‘higher bar’ of proof of discrimination if someone is in in the ‘majority’.

A heterosexual woman was demoted, a position she had applied for was filled by a lesbian with lesser qualifications, and her previous position was given to a gay man.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit threw out Ames’s sexual orientation claim. Because Ames is straight, the court of appeals explained, her claim could not go forward unless she could show “background circumstances” to support her allegations of reverse discrimination – for example, evidence that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision or showing a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority group. But in this case, the court of appeals emphasized, the department officials who actually made the hiring and demotion decisions were straight, and there was no “pattern” of reverse discrimination. 

Kentaji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion which said:

The 6th Circuit’s rule, Jackson wrote, is inconsistent with the text of the federal employment discrimination law, which bars discrimination against everyone – without distinguishing between members of a minority group and members of a majority group. “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.” 

Right now there’s a three step framework for proving discrimination. SCOTUS kicked this back because the lower court added a fourth step.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas indicated that the present framework is difficult and that he would be open to overruling it.

Thomas suggested that the three-step test that the court has developed to use in discrimination claims – known as the McDonnell Douglas framework – “lacks any basis in the text of” federal employment discrimination law “and has proved difficult for courts to apply.” “In a case where the parties ask us to do so,” he concluded, he “would be willing to consider” overruling it.

In the meantime, we won’t need to use the term ‘reverse discrimination’ since it’s been ruled to be moot.