In a decision issued in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court ruled that members of a majority group do not have to prove special “background circumstances” to show they suffered discrimination.
Why it matters: The decision makes it easier for majority group employees to prove they were discriminated against by removing the additional heightened evidentiary standard applied to majority group plaintiffs, potentially opening the door for more anti-DEI litigation.
Background: The case involved a heterosexual female employee (Ames) of a youth services department who claimed that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted in favor of two LGBTQ+ individuals. Ames claimed these decisions were the product of discrimination against her on the basis of her heterosexuality.
-
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames, holding that she failed to show evidence of extra “background circumstances,” a higher evidentiary standard that the Sixth Circuit applied in cases involving members of majority groups (in this case heterosexual individuals).
-
Four other Circuit Courts of Appeal use the same heightened standard.
The Supreme Court decision: A unanimous Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s decision and held that the same standard must be applied in discrimination cases regardless of whether the employee in question belongs to a majority or minority group. “[Federal anti-discrimination law] leaves no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” said the Court.
-
Most federal courts already abide by the standard laid out by the Supreme Court in Ames and, despite widespread media coverage, so-called “reverse discrimination” cases are rare – those that move past the summary judgment stage are even rarer.
The bottom line: The decision makes the standard consistent in all judicial districts and undoubtedly will add to the rising tide of anti-DEI litigation currently washing over the U.S.
