U.S. Supreme Court removes barriers to proving āreverse discriminationā
June 5, 2025
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a woman who claims she was the victim of āreverse discriminationā in the workplace should be allowed to go forward with her case.
The justices agreed that a federal appeals court in Ohio was wrong to impose a higher bar for the case than it would have if the woman had been a member of a minority group.
This higher bar, called ābackground circumstances,ā has been a requirement in five appeals courts around the country. It meant that when members of a āmajorityā group raised discrimination claims, they had to demonstrate ābackground circumstancesā to pursue their suit.
A plaintiff could, for example, meet that requirement by providing documentation proving a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority. In this case, the woman couldnāt do that and so she lost in the lower courts.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote the opinion for the court, said the Supreme Courtās past cases made clear that the requirements needed to bring a successful lawsuit under federal anti-discrimination law ādo not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.ā
The ābackground circumstancesā rule, Jackson wrote, āflouts that basic principle.ā
āBy establishing the same protections for every āindividualā ā without regard to that individualās membership in a minority or majority group ā Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,ā Jackson wrote.
The decision in Ames v. Ohio doesnāt necessarily mean that the woman who filed the case ā or other employees ā will win their lawsuits. Rather, it eliminates a hurdle in such cases that kept some plaintiffs from demonstrating employers acted with discriminatory motives.
While this ruling may put more employers at risk for discrimination lawsuits, it doesnāt change the laws prohibiting workplace discrimination. All employment decisions should be made based on an employeeās qualifications and work performance, rather than factors such as a personās sex, race, age, or other characteristics.
Key to remember: Some federal courts set a higher bar for proving workplace discrimination if an employee was part of the āmajority.ā That requirement has been deemed wrong in a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
J. J. Keller's FREE SafetyClicks⢠e-newsletters bring quick-read transportation, industrial & manufacturing, and human resources compliance news right to your inbox.
June 5, 2025
AuthorJudy Kneiszel
TypeIndustry News
Industries{not populated}
Related TopicsDiscrimination
Governing Bodies{not populated}
Citations{not populated}