Supreme Court to Review Reverse Discrimination Employment Case
Title VII claims alleging employment discrimination are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework which requires that the employee first show that they are a member of a protected class (race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical and/or mental disability or sexual orientation) to establish their prima facie case. However, courts have noted that such a requirement is inapposite where the employee claims that they were subjected to discrimination because of their membership in a majority group, or “reverse discrimination.”
On Oct. 4, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to review a reverse discrimination case where the petitioner, an Ohio Department of Youth Services employee, claims that she was denied promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual.
Some courts, noting the McDonnell Douglas framework’s first prong requirement, have required non-minority plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination show that their “background circumstances” prompted the employer to discriminate against them.
The petitioner claims that the background circumstances standard carries a higher, more stringent burden absent from Title VII’s statutory language. She also claims that circuit courts are currently split on the background circumstances standard, with the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits imposing the extra burden, while the Third and Eleventh Circuits have expressly rejected the standard, and the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits have not expressly rejected the rule but do not apply it.
The Ohio Department of Youth Services rejects that the background circumstances requirement is a higher burden, instead labeling it a merely different one. The Ohio Department of Youth Services also claims that the differences in the background circumstances element across the circuits are merely differences in language as regardless of the jurisdiction, the employee is asked to provide evidence from which a factfinder can infer the employer discriminated against the employee.
The decision has implications for the future standard to be used when alleging and defending against reverse discrimination employment claims. This matter is still developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
