Washington – The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the anti-discrimination laws of the country also apply to all employees, that those who complain about bias are white or black, gay or hetero.
In a Short and unanimous opinionThe judges dismissed as outdated and confused the idea that “members of a majority group” must show more evidence of discrimination before being able to continue and win.
Instead, the judges said the 1964 civil rights law has always prohibited discrimination in the workplace against “any individual” who suffers from discrimination due to race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation.
The law “makes no distinction between the complainants of the majority group and the complainants of the minority group,” said judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The decision revives a trial of discrimination brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said that she had been demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay who had less experience.
Ames is a heterosexual woman. She continued her employer, the Department of Ohio Youth Services, and allegedly alleged that she had been a victim of discrimination due to her sexual orientation.
But a federal judge rejected his request for discrimination, and the 6th circuit court of Cincinnati confirmed this decision. In doing so, the judges said that she could not indicate “substantive circumstances” or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was “the unusual employer who discriminates the majority”.
The law students at the Faculty of Law of the University of Virginia called on his case at the Supreme Court. They stressed that the 6th circuit and several other courts continue to use an obsolete two -track approach to claims of discrimination.
However, this is not the norm in a large part of the nation. For example, they said that the 9th California -based circuit courtyard does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination of whites or men or heterosexuals.
But law students said the court should hear the Ames affair and clarify the law nationally.
Although the case does not directly imply dei or diversity, equity and inclusion, it drew additional attention due to the will of President Trump to rid the policies of the Government of Dei.
Jackson said the Supreme Court for over 50 years has regularly rejected the opinion that discrimination laws are applied differently to different groups of people.
In Griggs against Duke Power In 1971, “we said that”[d]The discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has prohibited. “”
A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said: “Titting this title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] Prohibit racial discrimination against white petitioners in th[at] Cases according to the same standards as those applicable were the negroes. »»
Lawyers for Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to cancel the 6th circuit and specify that there is no double standard to decide allegations of discrimination
In a concordant opinion, judge Clarence Thomas noted that the “majority” in the workplace differs according to the workplace.
“Women constitute the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing care, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.”
“The definition of the” majority “is even more difficult in the context of the race,” he wrote. “American families have become increasingly multicultural and attempts to divide us all into a handful of groups have no longer become inconsistent with time.”
The court's decision in Ames VS Ohio Department of Youth Services said that the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider the request for discrimination.
Experts in discrimination law declared that the decision will have an effect in certain regions but not in others.
“In practice, a greater” reverse discrimination “can survive a request for rejection,” said Evan Parness, lawyer for the core law firm in New York.
Although the decision does not significantly change the functioning of federal district courts in California, it has implications for certain courts in other parts of the country that requires higher evidence, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at the American University of Washington.
The “substantive circumstances” rule was applied for the first time before the courts of DC, after a white man continued the Baltimore and Ohio railway company arguing that he was a victim of discrimination when jobs were rather given to black and female candidates. The court judged that “he challenges[d] The common sense to suggest that the promotion of a black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white colleagues in our current society. »»
Columbia law professor Olaunde C. Johnson, “said that” opinion is not surprising. It depends on a simple and judicious statutory reading of title VII. The approach to the “substantive circumstances” of the 6th circuit was not typical, so I do not expect the case radically changing the dispute of discrimination in terms of employment on the ground. “
Brian McGinnis, a lawyer for the Fox Rothschild firm, said that the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an unusual and “fairly simple” perspective that there is no historical basis in the case law to require an excessive exception of white groups, heterosexuals or other majority groups.
And it represents an effort from the court to rationalize and eliminate the need for additional steps in disputes, he said.
There is a question about how change is applied, but McGinnis does not expect problems.
“There is some mischief potential, but I don't think that will have many changes in the daily operations of many employers or courts,” said McGinnis. “The short answer is that it should not change much.”
Savage reported Washington and Hussain of Los Angeles.
