Next month the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services – a case concerning “reverse discrimination” and whether members of a majority group are required to meet a heightened pleading standard to prove their claims.
The case involves a heterosexual female plaintiff who sued her employer claiming she suffered adverse employment actions – demotion and failure to promote – simply because of her sexual orientation. The lower court applied the heightened pleading standard requiring that the plaintiff, as a member of a majority group, show background circumstances to support her claim either by demonstrating that a member of the relevant minority group took the adverse action or showing statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group – evidence not required of traditional plaintiffs in Title VII cases.
Although the plaintiff would have likely been able to satisfy the burden to make a case of “traditional” discrimination, she was unable to provide the necessary background circumstances so the case was dismissed, with the appeals court affirming the decision. However, next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue to decide whether the background circumstances rule should apply to nontraditional plaintiffs. If invalidated, plaintiffs of majority membership alleging discrimination will be able to pursue claims on a level playing field under Title VII.
Discriminating against an employee with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is prohibited under the law. If you have been subject to an adverse employment action such as job termination or a refusal to hire, demotion, unwarranted negative performance reviews, harassment, hostile work environment, or other, it is important to seek the help of an experienced discrimination attorney. Contact the offices of Alan C. Olson & Associates to discuss your case at 262-785-9606.
