The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a potentially landmark case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, involving a reverse discrimination claim. The case revolves around a heterosexual employee who alleged discrimination by her lesbian manager based on her sexual orientation. The 6th Circuit Court ruled that the employee must show “background circumstances” suggesting the employer discriminates against majority groups in order to support her claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. SCOTUS will review whether such circumstances are required.
This case raises important questions about the application of Title VII and builds on the 1973 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green decision, which established the framework for proving discrimination claims under the law. Over time, courts have adapted this framework for cases where plaintiffs from majority groups allege discrimination. This adaptation, known as the “background circumstances” requirement, is at the heart of Ames.
Experts speculate that the Supreme Court may reject this additional requirement, especially with its recent textualist approach in cases like Bostock v. Clayton County and Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. Elizabeth Beske, a law professor, predicts the Court may rule that if the background circumstances requirement is not explicitly in the statute, it should not be implied. Regardless of the outcome, Beske emphasized that employers need to prepare for the broader implications of reverse discrimination cases.
The legal landscape is further complicated by the 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, which struck down certain affirmative action policies in universities. This ruling has influenced challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the workplace, especially as the Supreme Court appears to apply consistent interpretations across different sections of the Civil Rights Act. Beske noted that this trend could result in more reverse discrimination claims against employers, particularly as the Court’s interpretation of Title VII evolves.
HR departments should be prepared to adjust their DEI strategies in response to these shifting legal standards. Tahir Boykins, associate general counsel for TriWest Healthcare Alliance, suggested that documentation will be a crucial defense in any reverse discrimination case. Employers must be diligent about maintaining accurate performance reviews and documentation, particularly when making decisions about termination. Boykins also recommended that HR departments focus on creating inclusive workplace cultures rather than solely relying on diverse hiring practices, which could potentially lead to legal challenges.
Beske also advised employers to closely monitor their DEI programs and consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with evolving laws. This is particularly important for outward-facing materials and recruitment practices, where missteps could expose employers to increased risk of litigation. In light of recent Supreme Court decisions, HR professionals must be proactive in reshaping workplace policies to minimize the likelihood of reverse discrimination claims.
