I weigh in here on the recent unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Ames v. OH Dept of Youth Services on applying the same legal standard for majority as minority plaintiff discrimination cases. With insights also from law professor Joan Williams and other legal experts.
Supreme Court Ruling May Affect Akron-Area Reverse Discrimination Suits, SignalAkron
*** Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court potentially made it easier for people like Tullis to claim discrimination. The justices unanimously struck down a requirement in Ohio and some other states that members of the majority meet a higher burden of proof to show discrimination.
The case was brought by an Akron-area woman who said she was passed over for a job at the Ohio Department of Youth Services because she was straight. ***
The ruling could make so-called reverse discrimination cases easier to get through the courts. And although the Supreme Court’s decision was not related to national conversations about the value of diversity in workplaces, the case also highlights the fact that recently, members of the majority have increasingly maintained that they have been disadvantaged because of their race, gender, sexuality or other reasons related to their majority identity.
Not only are these cases becoming more common, said Tracy Thomas, the Seiberling Chair of Constitutional Law at the University of Akron School of Law, they are becoming more successful.
She said that courts have become more accommodating of discrimination claims by members of the majority. The shift comes on the heels of a national political movement against equity and inclusion programs that Thomas said has been building for some time.
“When historically excluded groups begin to share that power, then power pushes back,” Thomas said. “They don’t see their own privilege or how it’s operating at other people’s expense.”***
Thomas said Tullis’ framing of the case implied that only lucky or favored women were getting jobs like his. It’s part of a “historic backlash” to the removal of barriers that made it more difficult for minorities to enter — and succeed in — the workplace. Such changes are often presented as matters of fairness, she said.
She said she’s concerned that because of the Ames ruling, some employers will overcorrect, and only hire or promote minority candidates if they’re exponentially more qualified than majority candidates — a dynamic minority candidates have long had to contend with to prove their worth. That, Thomas said, means the results of the case could be more problematic than the ruling itself suggests.
“Nobody likes the idea that decisions are not based on merit,” she said.