U.S. Supreme Court applies Title VII standard of proof equally to all Plaintiffs

 

In a unanimous opinion issued today the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services overruled prior precedent - including in the Tenth Circuit - that previously held members of non-minority groups to a different burden of proof for discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. After Ames, courts may not impose a heightened burden on plaintiffs who are members of a majority group when asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In Ames, Ms. Ames, a heterosexual woman, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after being passed over for a promotion and later demoted—alleging that she was discriminated on the basis of being a heterosexual female - for sexual orientation. The Sixth Circuit - like the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals - had previously applied a “background circumstances” rule to such claims brought by member of a majority group which required that a plaintiff show additional evidence suggesting that the employer was the rare kind that discriminates against the majority to provide a violation of Title VII.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that this additional requirement was inconsistent with Title VII’s plain text and precedent which protects any individual from discrimination based on race, sex, and other protected characteristics, without distinguishing between majority and minority status. The Court reaffirmed that all plaintiffs are entitled to the same standards when making a prima facie case of discrimination under the familiar McDonnell Douglas framework applied to Title VII cases and rejected the idea that majority-group plaintiffs must meet a more demanding evidentiary standard at the outset.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, wrote a separate concurrence criticizing judge-made legal constructs like the “background circumstances” rule and questioning the broader utility of the McDonnell Douglas framework at the summary judgment stage. But he failed to address and skirted numerous judge-made legal standards that often deny plaintiffs their right to a jury trial, including frameworks for determining whether an employee is "comparable" for purposes of using comparator evidence to support a discrimination claim, what stray remarks are admissible evidence, when a same actor inference can be used, and the "honestly held" belief used to subvert claims of pretext. Nonetheless, this decision marks a strong reaffirmation that federal anti-discrimination law protects individuals equally, regardless of their race, sex, or sexual orientation, and reinforces the principle that the law should not impose unequal burdens based on group status. 

The opinion also puts to rest any arguments that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Should you have questions about this decision, or any employment issue, feel free to email us at scheduling@stavroslaw.com or call us at (801) 758-7604 to discuss your concerns with an employment lawyer. 

Location: Sandy, UT, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FTC Extends Comment Period for Rule Banning Non-compete Agreements for Employees and Independent Contractors

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will extend the comment period through April 19, 2023 for its proposed rule banning non-compete agreements for employees and independent contractors. (See FTC Announcement ). On January 5, 2023 the FTC issues a proposed rule that prohibits employers from using non-compete clauses with employees and independent contractors. If adopted, the FTC rule would require employers to rescind any such clauses contained in agreements with their employees and independent contractors, and provide notice that such clauses are no longer in effect. It would also prohibit such clauses moving forward. The proposed rule can be accessed here (See FTC Proposed Rule ). The rule is expressly limited to restrictive covenants that prohibit employee mobility - accepting jobs with competitors. But the proposed rule would also reach non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions to the extent such provisions are functionally equivalent to a non-compete clause. I...
Read more

Federal Court Holds Job Applicants Cannot Assert Disparate Impact Claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1986 (ADEA)

An en banc panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that that Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not cover disparate impact claims asserted by job applicants. You can read the opinion here: Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. The facts in Kleber are straightforward. Kleber, an attorney, applied for a senior in house position with CareFusion in response to a job posting that required applicants to have "3 to 7 years" of relevant legal experience (but no more).  He was 58 when he applied and the job was ultimately given to a 29 year old applicant. Kleber filed a lawsuit under the ADEA asserting both disparate treatment claims and disparate impact claims under Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(2) of the ADEA. The disparate impact claim was based upon the premise that the impact of the job limitation on experience was to exclude applications who were older, even if that decision was not the result of discriminatory bias or intent.   Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA makes it...
Read more

New Utah Non-Compete Bill Effective as of May 10, 2016

In a move that was surprising to many, the Utah legislature passed, and the Governor signed, H.B. 251, the "Post-Employment Restrictions Act" in March of 2016. You can review the new law here , which sets a one year-limit on employment non-compete agreements starting May 10, 2016. While the Act that ended up being passed was altered significantly from the original bill that was introduced, the Act prohibits employee non-compete agreements from being longer than one year following termination, and, significantly, requires a non-prevailing employer who seeks to enforce an agreement in violation of the Act to pay attorneys' fees and costs to an employee who successfully challenges the enforceability of the post-employment non-compete agreement. What Non-Compete Agreements are Subject to the Act? Utah Code Section 34-51-201 provides that "in addition to the requirements under the common law, for a post-employment restrictive covenant entered into on or after May 10...
Read more