Article re Supreme Ct rejection of 6th circ heightened standard in discrim cases
Employer alert:
SCOTUS resolves circuit court split on discrimination claims by majority-group plaintiffs
In the recent case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the United States Supreme Court settled a legal rift between the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and DC Circuit courts (requiring a heightened pleading standard) and the remaining circuits, including the 9th Circuit, (not requiring a heightened pleading standard) involving Title VII disparate treatment discrimination claims of majority-group plaintiffs.
In Ames, a heterosexual employee, Marlean Ames, who had started her tenure at the Ohio Department of Youth Services as a secretary and was later promoted to program administrator, applied internally for a newly-created management position within the department. However, her sought-after management position was ultimately filled by a lesbian woman while a gay man was placed in Ames’ program administrator position, causing Ames to be demoted back to her original secretarial role which entailed taking a significant pay cut. Ames filed suit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the agency. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas three-prong inquiry and found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Let’s refresh ourselves on this test:
Step 1: The plaintiff bears the “initial burden” of “establishing a prima facie case” by producing enough evidence to support an inference of discriminatory motive. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802 (1973).
Step 2: If the plaintiff clears that hurdle, the burden then “shift[s] to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” McDonnell Douglas Corp, 411 U. S. at 802.
Step 3: If the employer articulates such a justification, the plaintiff must then have a “fair opportunity” to show that the stated justification “was in fact pretext” for discrimination. Id., at 804.
Both the district and appellate courts found that Ames had failed to meet her prima facie burden. For most plaintiffs, the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework—the prima facie burden—is “not onerous.” A plaintiff may satisfy it simply by presenting evidence “that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” But, under Sixth Circuit precedent, plaintiffs who are members of a majority group bear an additional burden at step one: They must also establish “‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’” And herein, lies the issue at hand that SCOTUS was faced with.
Ultimately, the high court resolved that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule did not mesh with the text of Title VII or longstanding precedents. And nothing Ohio had said persuaded the Supreme Court otherwise. The Court concluded that as a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” It added that “by establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” Thus, Title VII was found to not impose the Sixth Circuit’s heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs in order to carry their burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework.
Although California employers are not directly affected by this decision with the 9th Circuit being part of the group of courts not requiring the heightened standard, these types of cases are helpful reminders for employers to review their hiring, firing and other workplace policies to ensure compliance with all labor and employment laws. Contact Rosasco Law Group for all of your workplace questions and concerns.
