logo
The Supreme Court just made it easier for White workers to sue for bias. Here's why.

The Supreme Court just made it easier for White workers to sue for bias. Here's why.

USA Today05-06-2025

The Supreme Court just made it easier for White workers to sue for bias. Here's why. 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.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
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 this week 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 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. While 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, from 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 critic, 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 following 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, critics like 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 America First Legal advocacy organization, 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 2020 murder.
At first, these initiatives to combat discrimination and increase the persistently low percentage of female, Black and Hispanic executives seemed to get results.
Between 2020 and 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 critical 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, they help ensure that individuals are rewarded based on their qualifications alone, they say.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund 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,' Avatara Smith-Carrington, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, said. '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.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Appeals court won't reconsider ruling that Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll $5M in sex abuse case
Appeals court won't reconsider ruling that Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll $5M in sex abuse case

Hamilton Spectator

time12 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Appeals court won't reconsider ruling that Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll $5M in sex abuse case

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court won't reconsider its ruling upholding a $5 million civil judgment against President Donald Trump in a civil lawsuit alleging he sexually abused a writer in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s. In an 8-2 vote Friday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump's petition for the full appellate court to rehear arguments in his challenge to the jury's finding that he sexually abused advice columnist E. Jean Carroll and defamed her with comments he made in October 2022. Carroll testified at a 2023 trial that Trump turned a friendly encounter in spring 1996 into a violent attack after they playfully entered the store's dressing room. A three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld the verdict in December, rejecting Trump's claims that trial Judge Lewis A. Kaplan's decisions spoiled the trial, including allowing two other Trump sexual abuse accusers to testify. The women said Trump committed similar acts against them in the 1970s and in 2005. Trump denied all three women's allegations. In an opinion Friday, four judges voting to reject rehearing wrote: 'Simply re-litigating a case is not an appropriate use' of the process. 'In those rare instances in which a case warrants our collective consideration, it is almost always because it involves a question of exceptional importance,' or a conflict between precedent and the appellate panel's opinion, Judges Myrna Pérez, Eunice C. Lee, Beth Robinson and Sarah A.L. Merriam wrote. All four were appointed by President Joe Biden, Trump's one-time Democratic rival. The two dissenting judges, Trump appointees, Steven J. Menashi and Michael H. Park, wrote that the trial 'consisted of a series of indefensible evidentiary rulings.' 'The result was a jury verdict based on impermissible character evidence and few reliable facts,' they wrote. 'No one can have any confidence that the jury would have returned the same verdict if the normal rules of evidence had been applied.' Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement: 'E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today's decision.' 'Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed. He remains liable for sexual assault and defamation,' said Kaplan, who is not related to the judge. Trump skipped the trial after repeatedly denying the attack ever happened. He briefly testified at a follow-up defamation trial last year that resulted in an $83.3 million award. The second trial resulted from comments then-President Trump made in 2019 after Carroll first made the accusations publicly in a memoir. Kaplan presided over both trials and instructed the second jury to accept the first jury's finding that Trump had sexually abused Carroll. Arguments in that appeal are set for June 24. The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done. ___ Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel Say Their ‘Partnership' Is Sealed
U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel Say Their ‘Partnership' Is Sealed

New York Times

time14 minutes ago

  • New York Times

U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel Say Their ‘Partnership' Is Sealed

U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel announced on Friday that they had entered into an agreement with the U.S. government to seal the terms of a 'partnership' between the companies, more than a year after the Japanese steel maker first tried to buy its U.S. competitor. Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., under pressure from the United Steelworkers union, blocked the deal on the basis that it was a threat to national security. President Trump, who also initially opposed the deal, reversed himself and decided to look for a way to revive it. The companies referred to the deal as a partnership, echoing language that Mr. Trump used in describing the transaction he blessed three weeks ago. But U.S. Steel has not indicated to shareholders that it has altered the $14.9 billion sale to Nippon that they approved in April last year. 'We thank President Trump and his administration for their bold leadership and strong support for our historic partnership,' the companies said in a statement. 'This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come.' The companies said they had entered into agreement with the U.S. government to alleviate any security concerns posed by the deal, known as a national security agreement, which calls for roughly $11 billion in new investments by 2028. The deal will also give the U.S. government a 'golden share' in the company, a rarely used practice through which the government takes a stake in company. In the United States, the government has typically taken a stake only in companies that are ailing or in particular need of government attention, like General Motors during the 2008 financial crisis. This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Dow Jones Index Today: DJIA Drops on Israel Strikes as Consumer Sentiment Jumps
Dow Jones Index Today: DJIA Drops on Israel Strikes as Consumer Sentiment Jumps

Business Insider

time14 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Dow Jones Index Today: DJIA Drops on Israel Strikes as Consumer Sentiment Jumps

The Dow Jones (DJIA) is down by over 1% as the market processes the impact of Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear and military facilities. Meanwhile, oil prices are surging as the conflict threatens to disrupt energy supply chains in the Middle East. Confident Investing Starts Here: On Friday, President Trump said that Israel's strikes will actually be a positive for the market. 'I think ultimately, it would be great for the market because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. It will be great for the market—should be the greatest thing ever for the market. Iran won't have a nuclear weapon that was a great threat to humanity,' said Trump in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. Trump also added that he was aware of the attack before it occurred and that he plans to speak with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today. Meanwhile, consumer sentiment has finally reversed a six-month slump based on the University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment. The index's preliminary June reading came in at 60.5, above the estimate for 53.5 and up from 52.2 in May. Furthermore, UM's year-ahead inflation expectation tallied in at 5.1% compared to 6.6% last month. Long-run inflation expectations are now at 4.1%, down from 4.2%. Which Stocks are Moving the Dow Jones? Let's shift our attention to TipRanks' Dow Jones Heatmap, which illustrates the stocks that have contributed to the index's price action. In a weak finish to the week, every single technology stock within the index is falling, led by Salesforce (CRM) and Nvidia (NVDA). In addition, payment providers Visa (V) and American Express (AXP) are taking a hit after the Wall Street Journal reported that Amazon (AMZN) and Walmart (WMT) are exploring the idea of issuing proprietary stablecoins. Elsewhere, communications services, energy, and healthcare, excluding embattled UnitedHealth Group (UNH), are relatively muted as we head into the weekend. DIA Stock Moves Higher with the Dow Jones The SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA) is an exchange-traded fund designed to track the movement of the Dow Jones. In addition, DJIA can't be bought or sold, although DIA can be. Wall Street believes that DIA stock has room to rise. During the past three months, analysts have issued an average DIA price target of $466.70 for the stocks within the index, implying upside of 9.82% from current prices. The 31 stocks in DIA carry 30 buy ratings, 1 hold rating, and zero sell ratings.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store