Contact Us
Categories
- SCOTUS
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Arbitration
- Work from Home
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Coronavirus
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Independent Contractors
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Human Resource Department
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- Adverse Employment Action
- Amazon
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Creech v. Brown
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Security Checks
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- "Ban-the-box"
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Cloud
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Earnings
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Freedom of Speech
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- Jury duty
- KYSHRM 2013
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Payroll
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Private employers
- Reference checks
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee photographs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Municipal Liability
- Online Account Protection
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tax Refund
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- United States v. Quality Stores
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Crisis Management
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Salary Threshold
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
SCOTUS Opens the Door to “Reverse” Discrimination
Employers expecting good news from a largely pro-employer Supreme Court have just been dealt an unexpected headache. In a rare unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court opened the door a little further to claims of “reverse” discrimination in the case of Ames V. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The Court removed the requirement that plaintiffs claiming reverse discrimination must prove their claims with additional background circumstances that were not required for a traditional discrimination claim.
"Reverse” discrimination claims stem from the assertion that an individual faced discrimination due to their status of not being in a protected class under Title VII. Courts required plaintiffs to show that their employer was the “unusual” employer who would discriminate against the majority and do so with “background circumstances.” Essentially, if you were alleging reverse discrimination, you must meet a higher standard of evidence.
In Ames, a heterosexual woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services claims to have been passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman. She was later demoted, and the agency hired a gay man to fill her former role.
Traditionally, discrimination cases go through a burden-shifting analysis when a plaintiff alleges discrimination but has no direct evidence - plaintiffs must present evidence that they belong to a protected class, were subject to an adverse employment action, were otherwise qualified, and were treated less favorably than similarly-situated employees outside the class. If the plaintiff does this, the employer defendant then must provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. The burden would then shift back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s stated reasoning is merely pretext for discrimination.
The trial court and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ames found that the plaintiff failed to complete the first step in this analysis by providing the background circumstances demonstrating that the employer would “discriminate against the majority.”
The Supreme Court fully rejected this line of reasoning in its holding: Title VII and the burden-shifting analysis do not distinguish between majority and minority groups in their text or application. Holding a plaintiff to a higher proof standard because of their majority status would essentially run afoul of these laws by discriminating against an individual solely on the basis of their characteristics. In other words, “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” mean exactly what they say, regardless of what category an individual falls in each of them.
Where “reverse” discrimination claims have been rarely successful, employers can now expect a rise in such claims. Employers may also want to consider revising policies and institute training to conform with this opinion. If you’re concerned about the effect this may have on your workplace, contact your McBrayer attorney for more information.
Cynthia L. Effinger, Member with McBrayer, is located in the firm’s Louisville office. Ms. Effinger’s practice is concentrated in the areas of employment law and commercial litigation. Her employment law practice focuses on drafting employment manuals and policies, as well as addressing social media, wage and hour, non-compete agreements, and workplace discrimination. Ms. Effinger can be reached at ceffinger@mcbrayerfirm.com or (502) 327-5400.
Services may be performed by others. This article does not constitute legal advice.