Supreme Court to Rule on Reverse Discrimination Case

Both federal and state laws prohibit discrimination at work against what are known as protected classes. Protected classes generally are those people who have, historically, been seen as minority groups or who have historically faced discrimination.

Any harassment, discrimination or separate, negative treatment of people in those classes is illegal.

What About Reverse Discrimination?

But can you have reverse discrimination? In other words, would it be possible for someone who is not in any minority group to sue for discrimination if an employer discriminated against them for being in the majority?

With all the years of having these kinds of civil rights laws, you would think we would have the answer to this question. We actually don’t—but it looks like we may have that exact answer shortly.

The Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case where a heterosexual straight woman alleges that she was discriminated against at work because she was straight, and not homosexual. The straight woman alleges that she was denied a promotion, and that the promotion was instead given to a gay man, and the woman alleges that she was not given the promotion only because she was straight.

Her boss, the person making the promotion decisions, was a gay woman.

On the surface, this looks like straight, plain discrimination. But being straight, the woman is not a member of a protected class.

An Extra Step for Reverse Discrimination Cases

In other cases, some courts have ruled that someone in a majority class—in this case, a straight heterosexual person—can sue for discrimination, but when the employee suing is not a member of a minority group or protected class, he or she must show that the employer is one that traditionally discriminates against members of the majority group—that is, that there is some pattern, history or other evidence that the employer has previously favored minority employees over majority employees.

This is a burden and an additional step that doesn’t exist in “traditional” discrimination cases where the person suing is a member of a minority group.

Is the Extra Step Fair?

Many have complained that this extra burden that a person of a majority class must show is unfair. They contend that the civil rights and employment discrimination laws create no such extra burden, and because of that, courts should not impose the extra burden. They also contend that discrimination at work is discrimination in any form, regardless of whether the victim is a majority or minority class.

What the Case May Mean

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case, and while the decision is not published yet, based on comments and argument at argument, many in the media believe the Supreme Court is prepared to do away with this extra step.

If they do, it will mean that companies and employers will have to look out for discrimination claims, and be wary of them and act on them, regardless of the race, gender, or protected class of the victim. And it could, possibly, open the door to more employment discrimination and harassment lawsuits.

Questions about your workplace or the laws that apply to your employees? Let the West Palm Beach commercial litigation lawyers at Pike & Lustig help you with your labor and employment legal issues.

Sources:

oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1039

msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Examining_Ames_v_Ohio_Department_of_Youth_Services_Majority_Group_Discrimination_and_Title_VII.aspx