The Supreme Court gets rid of a silly DEI rule pretty much no one liked
- The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously overturned a lower court ruling that imposed a stricter standard for majority plaintiffs in discrimination cases.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the court, emphasized that federal anti-discrimination law protects all individuals equally.
- Lower courts had previously ruled against ames, citing a Sixth Circuit rule that placed an additional burden on majority-group plaintiffs.
Supreme Court Rejects “Unusual Employer” Rule in Discrimination case
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously overturned a lower court ruling that imposed a stricter standard for majority plaintiffs in discrimination cases. The justices, in Ames v.Ohio, found that the “background circumstances” rule, which required plaintiffs from majority groups to demonstrate that their employer was the “unusual employer” who discriminates against the majority, was inconsistent with federal law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the court, emphasized that federal anti-discrimination law protects all individuals equally. The case involved Marlean Ames, a straight woman who alleged she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation when she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted.
Lower courts had previously ruled against ames, citing a Sixth Circuit rule that placed an additional burden on majority-group plaintiffs. This rule, in effect since 1981 in some courts, required them to present “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was predisposed to discriminate against the majority. The Supreme Court’s ruling eliminates this hurdle, ensuring equal treatment for all plaintiffs in discrimination claims.
The Supreme court decision underscores the principle established in McDonald v. Santa fe Trail Transportation Co. (1976), which affirmed that federal law prohibits racial discrimination against whites on the same terms as it prohibits discrimination against nonwhites. Jackson quoted the law banning workplace discrimination, which protects “any individual,” nonetheless of majority or minority status.
“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.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
What’s next
The ruling clarifies the standard for discrimination cases, ensuring that all plaintiffs are treated equally under the law, regardless of their majority or minority status.The Ames case will likely return to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.