By Peter J. Halesey, Esq.
Published on: Wed 11th Dec, 2024 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit regarding the standards of proof applicable to Title VII reverse discrimination claims.
In a so-called “reverse” discrimination case brought under Title VII, a plaintiff attempts to show that they are a member of a majority classification who is discriminated against. In the Sixth Circuit case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Plaintiff, Ames, sued an employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1946 based on claims of discrimination, specifically sexual orientation and sex. The employer in the case originally hired the Plaintiff, who is a heterosexual woman, in 2004. In 2014, the employer promoted her to the position of Prison Rape Elimination Act administrator. In 2017, the Plaintiff was assigned a new supervisor, who is gay. During a December 2018 performance evaluation, the Plaintiff’s supervisor said that the Plaintiff met expectations in ten competencies and exceeded expectations in one. Additionally, in January of 2019, the Governor of Ohio appointed another heterosexual individual to be the Department’s director. Subsequently, in April of 2019, the Plaintiff applied and interviewed to be the Department’s Bureau Chief of Quality Control. However, the Department did not hire her for that position. Shortly thereafter, another heterosexual individual met with the Plaintiff, terminated her from her position as the administrator for the Prison Rape Elimination Act Program, and demoted her to a different position. The Department then selected a 25 year-old gay male to replace the Plaintiff as PREA administrator. In addition, in December of 2019, the Department selected a gay woman for the position of Bureau Chief of Quality, the position for which the Plaintiff unsuccessfully applied for.
Because the Plaintiff was heterosexual (and, therefore, in a majority group), she was required to show additional “background circumstances” beyond her prima facie case evidence to “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer that discriminates against the majority.” The Court noted that the necessary showing of background circumstances was the principal issue, as otherwise the prima facia case was easy to make as her claim was based on sexual orientation, a protected ground under Title VII. The Plaintiff was demoted from her position as an administrator despite having good reviews and was replaced by a gay man. Additionally, she was denied the position of bureau chief which ultimately went to a gay woman.
The Court, however, noted that the Plaintiff’s case fell apart relevant to the requisite showing of background circumstances. The Court noted that typically plaintiffs “make that showing with evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group.” The Court noted that the Plaintiff made neither showing. The Plaintiff was terminated as administrator by heterosexual individuals (i.e., the same majority group as her) and the Plaintiff did not argue that any individual who denied her the position of Bureau Chief and chose another gay individual was also gay. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s only evidence of a pattern of discrimination against heterosexuals was her own demotion and denial of the Bureau Chief position. Accordingly, the Plaintiff could not show the requisite background circumstances, and her claim failed.
Notably, the Court’s Chief Judge issued a concurring opinion wherein he agreed that the background circumstances rule was correctly applied. However, he disagreed that the rule should be applied at all, and specifically expressed hope that the Supreme Court would take up the issue. Given the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in cases pertaining to protected employment classifications, it is unsurprising that the Court has taken this case to answer this question. In the event that the Supreme Court invalidates the background circumstances rule, plaintiffs may have a lighter burden in proving reverse discrimination under Title VII.
Takeaways:
• The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the “background circumstances” rule for majority-
group plaintiffs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Under this rule, majority group plaintiffs must show additional evidence beyond the normal prima facie case
requirements.
• Given the Court’s recent employment related decisions, it is possible that this rule will be overturned.
Bottom Line:
The United States Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the background circumstances rule for majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII after a decision of the Sixth Circuit upheld the rule. If invalidated, majority-group plaintiffs will have a much easier time bringing claims under Title VII. The attorneys at Campbell Durrant are available to advise you if your municipality is faced with a reverse discrimination claim.
