Chances are, you have heard the phrase “reverse discrimination.” However, you may not know that, in some states, plaintiffs seeking relief in one of these reverse discrimination cases faced an extra burden. That changed recently based on a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling. While the latest decision does not alter the way federal courts in New York assess reverse discrimination cases, the case remains noteworthy, particularly for its hints about potential future changes in the law. Whether or not you are a member of a historical “minority” group, you should know that city, state, and federal laws protect you from many forms of discrimination in the workplace. If you believe that has happened to you, you should reach out to a knowledgeable New York employment discrimination lawyer to discuss your situation further.
The woman at the center of the Supreme Court case, M.A., was a state government worker in Ohio who lost out on a new managerial job and, soon thereafter, endured a demotion. What made her case relatively uncommon was that she was heterosexual, while the woman who received the managerial position was a lesbian, and the man who replaced M.A. after her demotion was gay.
M.A. sued for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. In Ohio, employees who pursued “reverse discrimination” lawsuits were required to clear an extra hurdle that members of traditional minority groups were not. Specifically, a reverse discrimination plaintiff had to establish the existence of “background circumstances to support the suspicion” that their employer was “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
M.A. failed to demonstrate that those background circumstances existed, so the district court and appeals court ruled against her. The Supreme Court reversed those rulings, concluding that the extra hoop was impermissible. Justice Jackson, who wrote the opinion, explained that the background circumstances requirement was “not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing” Title VII.
This ruling functionally prohibits any federal court from requiring a reverse discrimination plaintiff to clear this extra background circumstance hurdle before pursuing their case. Members of historical minority and majority groups will be on the same footing in terms of what they have to demonstrate.
The Significance of the Ruling in New York
The court’s ruling will not have a massive immediate impact on employees pursuing these kinds of discrimination cases in New York for a couple of reasons. One, New York was not one of the places where the federal courts followed the background circumstances requirement. The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals had never adopted that requirement, so reverse discrimination plaintiffs were already on the same footing as members of traditional minority groups when undertaking Title VII lawsuits in federal court here.
Another reason is New York’s robust anti-discrimination laws -- at both the state and city levels. The New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law erect some of the strongest anti-discrimination protections in the country. Here, you can pursue (and win) a discrimination case as long as you were a member of a protected class, and discrimination based on that class was a factor in your being treated less well at work than those outside your class. Even if federal law was not favorable, you could still pursue justice using these powerful laws.
Are More Changes Coming to Title VII Law?
In the Ohio woman’s case, Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. (A concurring opinion agrees with the result the majority reached but adds extra commentary or reasoning for the decision.) Justice Thomas’s opinion expressed a willingness to reconsider (and presumably alter or eliminate) the McDonnell Douglas framework for assessing Title VII discrimination cases because the framework, established in the 1973 Supreme Court case of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, lacked “any basis in the text of Title VII.
The McDonnell Douglas framework sets an alternating series of proof requirements where the employee alleging discrimination first must demonstrate the existence of a “prima facie” case of discrimination; then the employer must present a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action it took; then the employee must show that the employer’s stated reason was just a pretext for illegal discrimination.
Scrapping the McDonnell Douglas framework would significantly alter the way many employees and employers approach litigating a Title VII discrimination case in federal court.
As discussed above, New York residents and workers have strong tools at their disposal for seeking accountability for impermissible workplace discrimination. When it comes time to pursue legal action and deploy those tools, you need a powerful advocate on your side. The experienced New York City employment discrimination attorneys at Phillips & Associates PLLC are here to help. Our team possesses the knowledge, skills, and diligence necessary to help you obtain justice. To learn more, please get in touch with us online or call (866) 229-9441 to schedule a complimentary and confidential consultation today.