The latest ruling from the Supreme Court, which was reached by a 9-0 unanimous decision, could indicate that the culture wars being fought in our communities, schools, and yes, our local businesses, could be shifting toward the right. The decision concerned the case of an Ohio woman alleging she’s a victim of what’s being called “reverse discrimination.”
Justice Ketjani Brown Jackson, a super liberal judge, is the one who wrote up the opinion. I know, right? Absolutely flabbergasting. I definitely didn’t have agreeing with Justice Jackson on my 2025 Bingo card. According to Jackson, Marlean Ames is not required to meet a “higher burden of proof to prove that she was discriminated against despite being part of a ‘majority group,” the New York Post reported.
Could this be a sign that common sense is being resurrected from the grave? Are we finally opening our eyes to how much diversity, equity, and inclusion policies are creating the problem they’re supposed to be solving?
Ames filed the lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services in November 2020. In the suit she alleges that she was wrongfully passed over for a promotion, which was given to a lesbian who was unqualified for the job. Things spiraled further down the drain from there, as the individual was replaced by someone else, a gay man, who also was not qualified for the job.
The complaint is now set to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
“The ruling from the Supreme Court makes it easier to pursue claims of reverse discrimination in 20 states and the District of Columbia that are covered by federal courts of appeals that still applied the standard,” CBS News report said.
Justice Jackson wrote that the Supreme Court “makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. … The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle.”
She then correctly pointed out that the requirement places all majority group plaintiffs under the same, very detailed evidentiary standards in all cases.
via Trending Politics News:
A federal district court had previously ruled in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services after it found that it offered “legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons” for not giving Ames the promotion.
The court then determined that Ames’ accusations didn’t meet the background circumstances necessary to establish a case of reverse discrimination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit backed the district court’s ruling and stood with them in agreement that Ames did not meet the requirement for background circumstances. Ames then turned to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case last October.
“Courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII’s anti-discrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs need not do so,” Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his opinion, which concurred with that of Jackson’s.
"*" indicates required fields
