On June 5, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that has been closely watched by employers and employees alike. In Ames, the plaintiff was a heterosexual woman who alleged that she was discriminated against because she was passed over and demoted by her employer in favor of homosexual employees.
In the Ames decision, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) do not require “majority group claimants” (white, male, heterosexual, Christian) to meet a heightened burden in order to succeed in a claim of discrimination against their employer. Prior to the decision in Ames, the Sixth Circuit (the federal appeals court presiding over Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee) had held that majority group claimants suing under Title VII could only succeed on a discrimination claim if they met a “heightened burden” and provided evidence of “other background circumstances” suggesting that their employer was “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
In rejecting this heightened standard, the Court looked to the text of Title VII, concluding that the clear language of the statute draws no distinction between majority and minority group plaintiffs. In other words, the Court held that there is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”; if an employer makes a decision or takes adverse action based upon a protected classification (race, color, religion, sex, nationality), it can be liable, regardless of what protected classification(s) the claimant employee falls under. The goal of increasing diversity is no longer a valid defense to Title VII discrimination claims.
The Court’s decision falls squarely in line with other recent actions by federal and state agencies that call into question the legality of employers’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives (“DEI”). As just one example, in March of this year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor issued joint guidance aimed at curbing discrimination against majority group plaintiffs as a result of DEI initiatives.
In light of the Ames decision and these actions by federal and state agencies, employers would be wise to evaluate their DEI programs to ensure that they do not contain preferences or advantages for minority groups at the expense of those in the majority. It is also advisable for employers to review their handbooks and management training to make clear that the prohibitions against discrimination apply equally to all groups, men, women, heterosexual, gay, white, or black, etc.
