The Supreme Court's latest workplace discrimination ruling could have major repercussions for employers and lead to a wave of new lawsuits
A Thursday Supreme Court decision about workplace discrimination is expected to change the way that employment law is practiced in the U.S. and make it easier for people to lodge claims against their organizations.
The court unanimously ruled that people who belong to majority groups, which would include white people or heterosexual people, do not need to show a higher standard of proof or 'background circumstances' in order to sue their employers. Until now, some lower circuit courts placed a higher burden on these plaintiffs, requiring them to prove that their employer was unusual in its moves to discriminate against them.
The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a former government employee for the state of Ohio who sued her employer after she was passed over for two promotions that were given to gay coworkers instead.
The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act doesn't specify between majority and minority groups, and that the burden of discrimination applies to all groups equally. 'The court essentially decided that discrimination is discrimination, and that all concerns around such should be taken seriously. And that means there being no higher burden, as a matter of law, to show it,' says Nonnie Shivers, employment and labor attorney and managing shareholder at firm Ogletree Deakins.
The court ruled as expected, but legal experts say the decision will have major ramifications across the employment sphere, and will likely lead to an uptick in reverse discrimination cases, in which a member of a majority group sues over perceived prejudice.
'We should expect to see this trend continue, and see an uptick in these so-called reverse discrimination claims brought by men who are not members of historically disadvantaged groups,' Michael Steinberg, a labor and employment attorney at firm Seyfarth Shaw, tells Fortune. 'Now they'll be armed with the Ames case, which confirms that the same framework for discrimination applies to anyone.'
The court's decision comes as diversity, equity and inclusion practices in corporate America are under attack. Over the past two years, many companies have rolled back their DEI practices following the Supreme Court's decision to ban affirmative action in colleges and universities. Although that decision did not apply to companies, it proved to be an inflection point around cultural attitudes towards DEI, and led to ripple effects in the working world.
Over the past few months, the Trump administration has taken aim at DEI in the workplace through a series of executive orders. Those moves have forced companies to reexamine their policies and decide whether or not they will stand by their DEI programs, change them in significant ways, or simply alter them in small ways to stay out of political crosshairs.
Some Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, specifically cited DEI in their decisions. Thomas wrote that employers in America have been ''obsessed'' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans,' and have 'overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.''It's not surprising, but it's confirmation that at least two of the justices on the Supreme Court are hostile to DEI,' says David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University, tells Fortune. 'I don't think there's been another case where they've actually put in writing, and these concurrences are sometimes used as breadcrumbs to encourage potential plaintiffs to see shifts in the wind and then follow them right to bring future claims.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he thinks the government has a 'very easy case' against Kilmar Abrego Garcia
President Donald Trump on Saturday said that it wasn't his decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, back to the U.S. to face federal charges, saying the 'Department of Justice decided to do it that way, and that's fine.' 'That wasn't my decision,' Trump said of Abrego Garcia's return in a phone call with NBC News on Saturday. 'It should be a very easy case' for federal prosecutors, the president added. Trump added that he did not speak with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about Abrego Garcia's return, even though the two men spoke about Abrego Garcia during an April meeting in the Oval Office. His remarks came after Abrego Garcia arrived back in the U.S. on Friday and was charged in an indictment alleging he transported people who were not legally in the country. The indictment came amid a protracted legal battle over whether to bring him back from El Salvador that escalated all the way up to the Supreme Court. Abrego Garcia's family and lawyers have called him a family man, while Trump and his administration have alleged that he is a member of the gang MS-13. The case drew national attention amid the Trump administration's broader push for mass deportations. After Abrego Garcia's deportation, lawyers for the Trump administration said he was deported in an 'administrative error,' as Abrego Garcia had previous legal protection from deportation to El Salvador. Still, the Trump administration did not attempt to bring Abrego Garcia back, even as the Supreme Court ruled that it had to 'facilitate' his return to the U.S. Democrats, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., had for weeks said that Abrego Garcia was denied due process when he was detained and deported, arguing that he should have been allowed to defend himself from deportation before he was sent to El Salvador. Trump on Saturday called Van Hollen, who went to visit Abrego Garcia in jail in El Salvador in April, a 'loser' for defending the man's right to due process. 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser. They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear,' the president said about Van Hollen. 'He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular. No, he's a total loser, this guy.' On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi alleged that Abrego Garcia 'was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over 100 trips, the grand jury found, smuggling people throughout our country.' In a statement Friday, Abrego Garcia's lawyer called Bondi's move 'an abuse of power, not justice.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows DOGE staffers to access Social Security data
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data. On Friday, the Court's six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population. In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions. In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: "We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision. The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." Social Security Works posted on X: "No one in history -- no commissioner, no president, no one -- has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have." White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that "the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law." Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the "Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." She concluded her dissent by writing: "The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process." Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs "from cradle to grave." "While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have 'God-level' access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more," Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers. DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion. The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare. SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs wrote: "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure -- and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it." Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that"The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. Musk called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28. The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers' payroll tax payments to people who are already retired. The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.

Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return ‘wasn't my decision,' Trump says
President Donald Trump said Saturday that the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia — the Salvadoran man who was illegally deported in March — was not his decision. 'That wasn't my decision,' Trump said in an interview with NBC News. 'The Department of Justice decided to do it that way.' Abrego Garcia was flown back to the United States on Friday to face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee, after prosecutors unveiled the indictment this week. It comes months after the Trump administration admitted it had mistakenly deported him — which the Supreme Court declared was illegal, ordering the government to "facilitate" his return — leading to an intense political and legal firestorm throughout the country over the ethics of the administration's mass deportation policy. 'It should be a very easy case' for federal prosecutors, the president told NBC News. Trump said that he did not talk to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about Abrego Garcia's return. Despite the high court's order, Trump officials have for months resisted bringing Abrego Garcia back to the U.S., arguing it was out of their hands as he was in Salvadoran custody. 'There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again,' Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told lawmakers last month. The Trump administration repeatedly labeled Abrego Garcia as a violent gang member, which his family and lawyers have flatly denied and a federal judge labeled as 'a vague, uncorroborated allegation.' Lawyers for the administration called his deportation 'an administrative error,' but did not immediately facilitate his return, despite the Supreme Court instructing them to. Intense backlash followed, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) traveling to El Salvador to meet with him and demand his return. Republicans, in turn, bashed Van Hollen and Democrats for defending him. Abrego Garcia's lawyers have urged the public to treat the allegations with suspicion. 'They'll stop at nothing at all — even some of the most preposterous charges imaginable — just to avoid admitting that they made a mistake, which is what everyone knows happened,' Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of his lawyers, told reporters Friday. 'He's not going to be convicted of these crimes,' the lawyer added. 'There's no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy.'