Florida Business Litigation Lawyer Blog
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” The broad language of this statute makes employers susceptible to Title VII claims brought by employees. Most Title VII lawsuits are brought by members of a minority group. However, a member of a majority group claim can claim unlawful discrimination, which is often called a “reverse discrimination” claim. This is what happened in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, 87 F.4th 822 (6th Cir. 2023). The plaintiff in Ames was a member of a majority group who sued for discrimination, and lost her lawsuit because she could not establish the heightened standard of proving discrimination that the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals only applies to members of majority groups. The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case. The Mavrick Law Firm defends businesses and their owners in employment litigation, including cases alleging discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower status, and wages and related damages, as well as business litigation (including breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud), non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.
Federal courts have a well-established burden shifting test to analyze claims of discrimination under the landmark decision McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The McDonnell Douglas test requires the plaintiff to first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which has four elements: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class, (2) the plaintiff was qualified for their position, (3) the plaintiff was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (4) the employer treated members outside of the protected class more favorably. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer to proffer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s proffered reason is pretext for discrimination.
In Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, 87 F.4th 822 (2023), a heterosexual woman sued her employer under Title VII alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex. She alleged the employer hired her in 2004 and promoted in 2014. In 2017, she was assigned a homosexual supervisor. In 2019, the plaintiff applied for and interviewed for a higher position, but was not hired. A few days after the interview, the employer terminated the plaintiff from her then current position and offered her a demotion. The employer then hired a much younger and lesser experienced homosexual man to replace the plaintiff. The employer also chose a homosexual woman to fill the higher position that the plaintiff interviewed for.
After the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, the district court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiff could not establish the first element of a prima facie case of discrimination, that she was a member of a protected class. This was because the plaintiff was a member of a majority group, for which the Sixth Circuit requires a proof of “background circumstances” indicating discrimination. Such “background circumstances” include, for example, the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or statistical evidence shows a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group. Notably, the Sixth Circuit does not require members of minority groups alleging discrimination to prove “background circumstances.” In addition to the Sixth Circuit, four other federal circuits also require members of majority groups to prove “background circumstances.” This includes the D.C. Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit.
The plaintiff petitioned for certiorari from the Supreme Court, which was recently granted. The plaintiff argued that the “background circumstances” requirement imposed by the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals conflicts with Title VII. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court addresses the “background circumstances” issue in the future.
The Fort Lauderdale employment lawyers of the Mavrick Law Firm also represent clients in Miami , Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. This article does not serve as a substitute for legal advice tailored to a particular situation.