For over 50 years, about half of federal courts have been applying one lenient legal standard for some favored demographic groups and a separate, more stringent standard for unfavored ones. The Supreme Court finally put an end to this improper discriminatory practice last week in ruling that plaintiffs suing their employers for discrimination must be held to the same legal standard, regardless of the color of their skin or sexual identity.
The case stems from claims made by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual white woman who worked as a program administrator for the Ohio Department of Youth Services and applied for a management position there in 2019. She had been with Youth Services for 15 years and had always received good performance reviews and raises. But not only was Ames denied the promotion, but her gay boss instead hired a lesbian, demoted Ames and cut her pay, and gave her vacated position to a gay man.
Ames filed suit in federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that she was denied promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation. Under earlier Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff must first show that an employer acted with a discriminatory motive to prevail in a Title VII disparate treatment claim. This first bar is “not onerous” and requires only that a plaintiff show they were “rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.”
But in the 6th Circuit, which encompasses Ohio, plaintiffs from a “majority group” had also to present evidence of “background circumstances” showing the defendant was “the rare employer” who discriminates against members of a “majority group.” This could take the form of “statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination” against members of the majority group or evidence that the person who made the hiring decision was a member of a minority group. Under the 6th Circuit, members of a “minority group” do not need to show such evidence.
Writing for the unanimous majority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that, “As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision never mentions the phrases “majority group” or “minority group.” They were activist judge inventions. The statute says only that it is unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
“Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson wrote, but that is what the 6th Circuit did.
Ames’ victory in the Supreme Court does not guarantee victory at trial. The Ohio Department of Youth Services can present evidence showing it had non-discriminatory reasons to deny Ames her promotion and to demote her. She will then have an opportunity to show that such reasons were only a pretext for the hostile actions taken against her.
ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL $1.2 TRILLION SPENDING CUT
Whether or not Ames prevails in her claim, her victory over the 6th Circuit’s “majority group” rule is a win for equal protection under law. For too long, activist judges and elite institutions have created rules and policies that make it more difficult for certain people to succeed because of the color of their skin. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down discriminatory practices of Harvard and the University of North Carolina is an earlier example of this encouraging trend.
But as this case shows, such discriminatory practices are widespread and will take years to root out. That the Supreme Court’s decision in this case was unanimous is encouraging as plaintiffs like Ames continue to fight for equal opportunity.