Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
“Reverse discrimination” is an informal phrase that refers to instances of discrimination where the target of discrimination was not a member of a historical minority group (like, for example, women, African Americans, and gays/lesbians) but rather a traditional majority group (like men, white people, and heterosexuals). Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the notion that members of majority groups should have a higher burden of proof placed on them as compared to members of minority groups. The high court’s decision reflects that federal discrimination law is evolving and will continue to change. The best way to equip yourself for success in a discrimination lawsuit is to seek out and retain an Atlanta discrimination lawyer who is deeply versed in, and entirely up to date on, all aspects of Title VII law.
The employee in the Supreme Court case, M.A., worked for an Ohio governmental agency that oversaw juvenile corrections in the state. When the agency created a new management role, she applied for it, but the role went to a different woman. Shortly thereafter, the agency demoted her to a secretarial job and chose a man to fill her vacant position.
She sued the agency for sexual orientation discrimination under federal law (Title VII). What made her case unusual was that she was heterosexual, and the successful candidates — the man who assumed the administrator role and the new manager — were gay and lesbian.
Both the trial court and the appellate court sided with the employer because M.A. had failed to demonstrate the necessary “background circumstances to support the suspicion” that her employer was “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” In other words, the courts made M.A. jump through an extra hoop that it would not have required if she had been a lesbian suing for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII and the employee had failed to clear that hurdle.
The Requirement Was ‘Not Consistent With’ the Law’s Text
The U.S. Supreme Court revived the woman’s case earlier this week. The unanimous court concluded that the erection of an additional “background circumstances” requirement (in addition to all the standard proof demands of a Title VII discrimination case) was not in line with the text of Title VII and with other existing Supreme Court rulings that interpreted Title VII.
The court’s decision in M.A.’s case effectively wipes out any extra hurdles nationwide for employees who pursue so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits under Title VII. Now, in all federal courts, discrimination plaintiffs who are members of traditional “majority” groups face the exact proof requirements as plaintiffs who are members of historical “minority” groups.
This ruling will not have a significant immediate impact on Title VII discrimination cases in Georgia. Only five federal circuits had adopted the “background circumstances” requirement, and the 11th Circuit was not one of them. (Workers in neighboring Tennessee, however, did face this extra obligation because their state fell in the 6th Circuit, which had adopted the rule.)
Could Changes Be on the Horizon?
Justice Jackson’s opinion focused on the central issue before the court — whether or not the “background circumstances” requirement was permissible. In a concurring opinion, though, Justice Thomas approached a larger question, which is the future viability of the McDonnell Douglas test for deciding circumstantial cases of discrimination. The test, established by the Supreme Court in the 1973 case of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, outlines a three-part analytical framework that imposes a back-and-forth exchange. First, the plaintiff must make an initial showing. Next, the defendant must offer a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory” reason for its adverse action. Finally, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defense’s legitimate reason was merely a pretext, concealing the true motivation: illegal discrimination.
Justice Thomas expressed his interest in considering whether the court should scrap the McDonnell Douglas framework, “which lacks any basis in the text of Title VII,” much like the background circumstances requirement. If a majority of the court agreed, that future case would dramatically rework the way people go about pursuing (and defending) federal discrimination lawsuits under Title VII.
If you believe that your employer has engaged in illegal discrimination against you, pursuing a federal case under Title VII is one option that may be available to you. To learn more about all your options and which one(s) may make the most sense given your specific circumstances, get in touch with the Atlanta employment discrimination attorneys at the law firm of Parks, Chesin & Walbert. Our team is well-versed in a variety of employment discrimination matters and can help you plot the best path forward. Contact us through this website or at 404-873-8048 to schedule a consultation today.