Straight white woman doesn't have to present special evidence to sue under Title VII, Supreme Court rules
A straight white woman does not have to clear a higher hurdle to bring a reverse bias claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday. (Photo by Rob Crandall/Shutterstock)
A straight white woman does not have to clear a higher hurdle to bring a reverse bias claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.
At issue is whether members of majority groups suing for discrimination under Title VII must present evidence of special “background circumstances” to support their claim. They do not, wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for the high court in a June 5 decision.
“We hold that this additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute,” Jackson wrote.
The Supreme Court ruled for Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who alleged that two less-qualified gay workers were chosen over her to fill positions with the Ohio Department of Youth Services.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati had tossed her bias claim because Ames did not present “background circumstances” suggesting that the agency was the rare employer that discriminates against the majority.
Ames could have satisfied the test by showing that gay people made the allegedly discriminatory decisions or by presenting statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against the majority group.
The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, was sent back to the lower courts for proper application of the standard.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
“I write separately to highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks,” Thomas said. The 6th Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule “is a paradigmatic example of how judge-made doctrines can distort the underlying statutory text.”
Hat tip to SCOTUSblog, which had early coverage of the opinion.
See also:
‘Radical agreement’ could lead to Supreme Court victory for reverse-discrimination plaintiff”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
