A Supreme Court ruling making it easier for “majority” groups such as white people and men to sue for on-the-job bias is expected to unleash a new wave of reverse discrimination claims.
SCOTUS ruling on ‘reverse discrimination’ civil rights case
The Supreme Court justices questioned whether an extra hurdle for people of “majority backgrounds” is required to prove discrimination.
For decades, men, straight people and White people were often held to a higher legal standard when bringing workplace bias claims than groups that historically faced discrimination.
No longer. The Supreme Court made it easier for members of so-called majority groups to sue for discrimination by siding with an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who claimed she twice lost jobs to lesser-qualified gay candidates because she is straight.
Federal civil rights law does not distinguish between members of majority and minority groups, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the unanimous decision June 5 striking down the standard used in nearly half of federal circuit courts.
Legal experts say the closely watched ruling could spur more reverse discrimination complaints at a moment when workplace diversity equity and inclusion programs are already under threat from the Trump administration.
“The ruling certainly puts employers on notice that discrimination against ‘majority’ employees is just as unlawful as discrimination against minority employees,” said William Jacobson, Cornell University law professor and founder of the Equal Protection Project, an advocacy group that opposes race-based policies. “There is no safe haven or carve-out for so-called ‘reverse discrimination.’”
Employers will have to change how they approach discrimination claims, said Johnny C. Taylor Jr., CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management. Though the rules were enforced equally, the level of response was often different based on who brought a bias claim, he said.
“Theoretically everyone understood that you should not discriminate against anyone in the workplace. In practice, however, our focus was on historically underrepresented groups, and that has an effect within an organization,” Taylor said. “You don’t take as seriously a White guy who comes in and says, ‘I was discriminated against in the workplace.’”
David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging at the NYU School of Law, downplayed the impact, arguing the high court’s decision “will put some wind in the sails of anti-DEI activists” and could lead to a “a slight uptick in reverse discrimination lawsuits.”
But, he said, “I think the uptick in such lawsuits will have far more to do with the current political environment than with this SCOTUS decision.”
Trump’s war on ‘anti-White’ bias
President Donald Trump campaigned against DEI for creating “anti-White feeling” and, on his first day back in the White House, he made it a priority of his administration to wipe out such initiatives, including purging DEI from the federal government and the military, threatening to strip billions of dollars in federal funding and grants from universities, and pressuring major corporations to roll back programs or risk losing federal contracts.
The president also tapped Andrea Lucas, a vocal DEI opponent, to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has broad sway over employers. Lucas pledged to restore “evenhanded enforcement of employment civil rights laws for all Americans” including “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.”
“I intend to dispel the notion that only the ‘right sort of’ charging party is welcome through our doors,” Lucas said in a statement after her appointment.
Though White workers account for about two-thirds of the U.S. workforce, their discrimination claims make up only about 10% of race-based claims, according to data USA TODAY obtained in 2023 from the EEOC.
Legal experts expect a wave of new claims with the EEOC and in courts across the country in coming months.
“The administration is encouraging people to file complaints regarding ‘unlawful DEI-related discrimination’ and making such claims an enforcement priority,” Glasgow said.
What is reverse discrimination?
In recent years, DEI opponents such as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have revived the concept of reverse discrimination. It first emerged in the 1970s in response to civil rights laws aimed at remedying structural inequalities in the workplace.
Miller’s advocacy organization America First Legal, which has issued dozens of legal challenges on behalf of White workers, argues that DEI programs deny opportunities to White Americans by focusing on race at the expense of merit.
In the Ames case, America First Legal wrote in a friend of the court brief it is “highly suspect in this age of hiring based on ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’” that majority groups are subjected to less discrimination than minority groups.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas cited America First Legal’s brief. “A number of this nation’s largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups,” Thomas wrote.
America First Legal senior counsel Nick Barry said the Supreme Court ruling “should serve as a clear call for conservative litigators to continue to press for the rule of law.”
DEI prevents bias, supporters say
DEI initiatives swept through corporate America and the federal government after George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis in 2020 and the wave of social justice protests that followed.
At first, these initiatives to combat discrimination and increase the persistently low percentage of female, Black and Hispanic executives seemed to get results.
From 2020 to 2022, the number of Black executives rose by nearly 27% in S&P 100 companies, according to a USA TODAY analysis of workforce data collected by the federal government.
But a forceful backlash reframed DEI as illegal discrimination. In 2023, the ranks of Black executives fell 3% from the prior year at twice the rate of White executives, USA TODAY found.
Supporters say DEI policies and programs are crucial in preventing discrimination, complying with civil rights laws and in creating workplaces that are more welcoming to everyone. Far from being at odds with merit, such programs help ensure people are rewarded based on their qualifications alone, they say.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund had urged the court to rule against Ames.
In a statement, the organization said the Supreme Court “did not disturb important, existing legal standards under Title VII or reject the idea that courts may consider the unfortunate realities of how discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, Black communities and other historically marginalized groups operates in America.”
“Nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion today should be misunderstood to mean that majority groups are now at an advantage when taking their discrimination claims to court,” said Avatara Smith-Carrington, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “Of course everyone is protected by Title VII; however, there is a persisting legacy of discrimination targeting Black people and other historically marginalized groups that cannot be ignored.”
