The Supreme Court is About to Answer a Big Question on Reverse Discrimination

Most of us already know that discrimination or harassment in the workplace based on a protected classification such as race or nationality or religion, among other categories, is illegal. But does that include all races, nationalities and religions—even so-called “majority” ones?

What is Reverse Discrimination?

That’s the issue that the Supreme Court is set to hear shortly. The case involves what is known as “reverse discrimination,” which  means discrimination in the workplace against someone who may be white, or Christian/catholic, or straight, or male, or all of these. In other words, discrimination against someone because of their race or religion, or even sexuality or gender identity, even though that race or religion or sexuality, is not actually a minority.

Reverse discrimination cases aren’t new, and they are legally recognized. However, barring a  change made by the Supreme Court, “majority” plaintiffs have a tougher legal burden to show workplace harassment or discrimination.

In these reverse discrimination cases, majority plaintiffs have had to prove that there are circumstances to support that the employer is an employer who discriminates against majority races or religions. For example, the Plaintiff may have to show that the employer has historically not hired white employees, or that the employer has repeatedly held back Christian or Catholic employees.

Minority employees who feel discriminated against, do not have this extra legal burden.

Case Goes to Supreme Court

The case before the Supreme Court involves a straight woman who sued, alleging that she was discriminated against by her boss, a gay woman. She alleges that she did not receive a promotion, but instead, a gay man was chosen for the position that the straight employee had wanted.

The lower court did find that the woman was discriminated against—but because she was straight, she had to prove that her employer had a pattern or practice or history of discriminating against straight employees, something she could not do, and thus, her case failed, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Is the Extra Legal Step Fair?

Many feel that this extra step is an insurmountable burden for majority-member employees, who have legitimately been discriminated against, and that all employees, regardless of race or religion, should have the same burden to prove harassment or discrimination. On its face, the law makes no exception for those who are white or male or Christian or any other majority group.

Of course, others feel that the laws are intended to protect minority groups, and because “majority discrimination” is more rare, it should be harder to prove. The Court may find that so long as a discrimination claim is possible by a majority employee, the fact it is harder to prove doesn’t make a difference.

We don’t know how the case will turn out, but it could pave the way for more employees to bring valid claims of discrimination and harassment against their employer, regardless of their race, gender identity, or ethnicity. The impact of the case may depend on how the Supreme Court words its ruling, and how broadly the Supreme Court opts to protect majority groups.  The federal government and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) urge the Supreme Court to find that anti-discrimination protections apply equally to all workers.

Discriminated against or harassed at work? Contact the San Jose employment attorneys at the Costanzo Law Firm today.

Sources:

oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1039

msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Examining_Ames_v_Ohio_Department_of_Youth_Services_Majority_Group_Discrimination_and_Title_VII.aspx