The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a woman who claimed she was discriminated against in her workplace because she is straight.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the Court’s opinion, “By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ —without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
Marlean Ames filed the suit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, alleging that a lesbian woman received a promotion she was also seeking. Upon her demotion, her former position was given to a gay man.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found Ames lacked evidence of “background circumstances” needed to prove discrimination against a person in the “majority” group.
“The question in this case is whether, to satisfy that prima facie burden, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’ 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 Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs—those who are members of majority groups—to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in order to carry their burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework,” she added. “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs.”
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that “courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII’s antidiscrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs need not do so. Such a rule is undoubtedly contrary to Title VII, and likely violates the Constitution, under which ‘there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race.’”
