The Supreme Court agreed on June 5 that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she’d been gay.
The unanimous decision, which landed amid a national backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion programs, could trigger a wave of “reverse discrimination” lawsuits.
The justices rejected a lower court’s ruling that Marlean Ames could not sue the Ohio Department of Youth Services because she’d failed to provide “background circumstances” showing the department was “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
That’s a test created in 1981 by a federal appeals court used by many, but not most, of the federal courts when assessing claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in 1981 that while white people are covered by the Civil Rights Act, it defied common sense “to suggest that the promotion of a black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.”
But the law itself, which bans discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” doesn’t set different thresholds for members of minority and majority groups.
{snip}
Ames’ lawyers told the justices her suit would not have been dismissed at this stage of the litigation had she been gay and the employees who got the jobs she wanted were straight.
{snip}
Evan Parness, an expert on employment law at Covington & Burling, said more “reverse discrimination” lawsuits may now clear an initial hurdle. {snip}
The post Supreme Court Sides With Straight Woman in ‘Reverse Discrimination’ Case appeared first on American Renaissance.
American Renaissance
