Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.
The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups.
Advt
Advt
Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis.
Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates
Save your favourite articles
Scan to download App
"By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson wrote.The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.Though he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court.Jackson's opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances.But Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
As Pune gears up for Pride March tomorrow, a transgender couple faces bureaucratic hurdles as they wait to tie the knot
Nearly two years ago, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, affirmed the rights of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry under existing laws. Priti, 29, a transgender from Jamshedpur who aspires to be a beautician and is waiting to tie the knot with Pune-based Trinay, 34, a transman legally recognised as male on his Aadhaar card, however faces several challenges to exercising this right. 'I have my TG Identity card and like any other woman, I want to be a wife, parent, and live with my husband. However, it has been more than one and a half years since the judgment but our transgender community still awaits this right,' Priti said. She hopes to raise this issue at the 13th Annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer Pride March to be held in Pune on Sunday. Priti, who has passed Class 12 and worked in the hotel management sector, is yet to be accepted by her family. 'I am a transgender person, not a sex worker. I want to become a beautician and earn my living. Mujhe jeena hai (I want to live),' Priti said. She met Trinay on an online portal, and before long, they forged a deep connection as they opened up about their personal struggles, finding strength and understanding in each other's stories. Trinay, assigned female at birth, but who always felt like a male deep inside, had experienced several challenges due to his situation. 'I wanted to pee like a boy, and wear tight T-shirts. Menstruation would give me panic attacks,' recalled Trinay, who works at a tech firm in the city. Deciding that he could not live this dual life anymore, he eventually transitioned to a male after undergoing gender affirming surgery. Speaking to The Indian Express, Trinay said, 'Priti and I have been doing the rounds of the marriage registrar's office only to return disappointed. Instead of guiding us on the online application process and other details, we were asked to obtain a court order.' The duo met Bindumadhav Khire, an LGBTIQ activist and director of Bindu Queer Rights Foundation, Pune, and spoke about their difficulty in registering their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 'Both of them have the requisite IDs. The transman has a collector-issued ID with gender stated as 'male' and the other transgender person has a collector-issued ID with the gender stated as 'transgender' as per provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the corresponding Rules (2020). I too approached the Marriage Registrar, but was told that they have not received any notification with regard to the legality of registering the marriage of transgender people. So they have to obtain an order from the high court or a notification from the government in this regard,' Khire told The Indian Express. The activist later filed a grievance in May on the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System to the Ministry of Home Affairs/Legislative Matters seeking a notification by the central government, to all states and Union territories, on the legality of registering the marriage of a transgender person in a heterosexual relationship. Khire, who received a response on June 6, said that suggestions made in the grievance have been noted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. 'We now hope that action will be taken in this case,' Khire said. When contacted, senior lawyer Anand Grover said that as per the top court's ruling, there was no legal prohibition on transgender individuals from getting married. Meanwhile, at the Marriage Registrar's office, authorities said that the process is now online and they have not received any application from transgender persons so far. While experts said it was likely that some registration offices may require guidance from higher authorities, if they have not previously handled such registrations, Khire said that it was important that LGBTIQ rights granted by the Supreme Court do not remain only on paper. 'This LGBTIQ Pride Month, it is important that LGBTIQ rights granted by the Supreme Court are implemented in letter and spirit. Transgenders who were granted legal recognition in the 2014 judgment (National Legal Services Authority v/s Union of India) still await their right to marry the person of their choice,' Khire added. As per the Supreme Court judgment dated October 17, 2023, in the case involving one Supriyo Chakraborty, the apex court stated, '…..Consequently, we agree with the conclusion…that transgender persons in heterosexual relations have the right to marry under existing laws, including in personal laws regulating marriage. The court's affirmation of the HC judgment in Arun Kumar v Inspector General of Registration…is based upon a correct analysis.' In Arun Kumar's case, the Madras High Court had said in 2019, 'A marriage solemnized between a male and a transwoman, both professing Hindu religion, is a valid marriage in terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Registrar of Marriages is bound to register the same. By holding so, this Court is not breaking any new ground. It is merely stating the obvious. Sometimes, to see the obvious, one needs not only physical vision in the eye but also love in the heart.' Anuradha Mascarenhas is a journalist with The Indian Express and is based in Pune. A senior editor, Anuradha writes on health, research developments in the field of science and environment and takes keen interest in covering women's issues. With a career spanning over 25 years, Anuradha has also led teams and often coordinated the edition. ... Read More
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump-backed tax bill aims to undo Obama and Biden policy milestones
Chiseling away at President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. Rolling back the green energy tax breaks from President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. At its core, the Republican big, beautiful bill is more than just an extension of tax breaks approved during President Donald Trump's first term at the White House. The package is an attempt by Republicans to undo, little by little, the signature domestic achievements of the past two Democratic presidents. We're going to do what we said we were going to do, Speaker Mike Johnson said after House passage last month. While the aim of the sprawling 1,000-page plus bill is to preserve an estimated USD 4.5 trillion in tax cuts that would otherwise expire at year's end if Congress fails to act and add some new ones, including no taxes on tips the spending cuts pointed at the Democratic-led programmes are causing the most political turmoil. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that 10.9 million fewer people would have health insurance under the GOP bill, including 1.4 million immigrants in the US without legal status who are in state-funded programs. At the same time, lawmakers are being hounded by businesses in states across the nation who rely on the green energy tax breaks for their projects. As the package moves from the House to the Senate, the simmering unrest over curbing the Obama and Biden policies shows just how politically difficult it can be to slash government programmes once they become part of civic life. "When he asked me, what do you think the prospects are for passage in the Senate? I said, good if we don't cut Medicaid," said Sen Josh Hawley, R-Mo, recounting his conversation last week with Trump. And he said, I'm 100 per cent supportive of that. Health care worries Not a single Republican in Congress voted for the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, in 2010, or Biden's inflation act in 2022. Both were approved using the same budget reconciliation process now being employed by Republicans to steamroll Trump's bill past the opposition. Even still, sizable coalitions of GOP lawmakers are forming to protect aspects of both of those programs as they ripple into the lives of millions of Americans. Hawley, Sen Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and others are wary of changes to Medicaid and other provisions in the bill that would result in fewer people being able to access health care programs. At the same time, crossover groupings of House and Senate Republicans have launched an aggressive campaign to preserve, at least for some time, the green energy tax breaks that business interests in their states are relying on to develop solar, wind and other types of energy production. Murkowski said one area she's "worried about is the House bill's provision that any project not under construction within 60 days of the bill becoming law may no longer be eligible for those credits. These are some of the things we're working on, she said. The concerns are running in sometimes opposite directions and complicating the work of GOP leaders who have almost no votes to spare in the House and Senate as they try to hoist the package over Democratic opposition and onto the president's desk by the Fourth of July. While some Republicans are working to preserve the programs from cuts, the budget hawks want steeper reductions to stem the nation's debt load. The CBO said the package would add $2.4 trillion to deficits over the decade. After a robust private meeting with Trump at the White House this week, Republican senators said they were working to keep the bill on track as they amend it for their own priorities. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the president made the pitch and the argument for why we need to get the bill done." The disconnect is reminiscent of Trump's first term, when Republicans promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, only to see their effort collapse in dramatic fashion when the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, voted thumbs down for the bill on the House floor. Battle over Medicaid In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, access to health care has grown substantially. Some 80 million people are now enrolled in Medicaid, and the Kaiser Family Foundation reports 41 states have opted to expand their coverage. The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to all adults with incomes up to about USD 21,500 for an individual, or almost USD 29,000 for a two-person household. While Republicans no longer campaign on ending Obamacare, advocates warn that the changes proposed in the big bill will trim back at access to health care. The bill proposes new 80 hours of monthly work or community service requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients, age 18 to 64, with some exceptions. It also imposes twice-a-year eligibility verification checks and other changes. Republicans argue that they want to right-size Medicaid to root out waste, fraud and abuse and ensure it's there for those who need it most, often citing women and children. Medicaid was built to be a temporary safety net for people who genuinely need it young, pregnant women, single mothers, the disabled, the elderly, Johnson told The Associated Press. But when when they expanded under Obamacare, it not only thwarted the purpose of the program, it started draining resources. Initially, the House bill proposed starting the work requirements in January 2029, as Trump's term in the White House would be coming to a close. But conservatives from the House Freedom Caucus negotiated for a quicker start date, in December 2026, to start the spending reductions sooner. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has said the changes are an Obamacare rollback by another name. It decimates our health care system, decimates our clean energy system, Schumer of New York said in an interview with the AP. The green energy tax breaks involve not only those used by buyers of electric vehicles, like Elon Musk's Tesla line, but also the production and investment tax credits for developers of renewables and other energy sources. The House bill had initially proposed a phaseout of those credits over the next several years. But again the conservative Freedom Caucus engineered the faster wind-down within 60 days of the bill's passage. Not a single Republican voted for the Green New Scam subsidies, wrote Sen Mike Lee, R-Utah, on social media. Not a single Republican should vote to keep them.
Hindustan Times
15 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Straight out of Soros playbook': BJP slams Rahul Gandhi's ‘match-fixing' remark over Maharashtra polls
Amid the ongoing controversy over Rahul Gandhi's 'match-fixing' remark on Maharashtra election results, BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya accused the Congress of deliberately undermining public trust in India's democratic institutions, a move he likened to tactics allegedly associated with billionaire George Soros. Malviya's remarks, which were posted on X, came in response to Rahul Gandhi's latest criticisms of the electoral process with respect to last year's Maharashtra Assembly Election and the upcoming Bihar polls. "When Congress wins — be it in Telangana or Karnataka — the same system is hailed as fair and just. But when they lose — from Haryana to Maharashtra — the whining and conspiracy theories begin, without fail. This is straight out of George Soros' playbook — systematically erode people's faith in their own institutions, so they can be cracked open from within for political gains. India's democracy is strong. Its institutions are resilient. And the Indian voter is wise. No amount of manipulation will change that," Malviya posted on X. On Saturday, Rahul Gandhi claimed that the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections were a "blueprint for rigging democracy" and questioned the integrity of voter lists. Rahul Gandhi claimed in a newspaper article. Slamming Gandhi for his remarks, Malviya also questioned the consistency of the Congress party's stance on electoral fairness. "It is not that Rahul Gandhi doesn't understand how the electoral process works. He does very well. But his goal is not clarity, it is chaos. His repeated attempts to sow seeds of doubt and dissension in the minds of voters about our institutional processes are deliberate," Malviya's post added. In response to the allegation made by Congress MP Rahul Gandhi regarding the Maharashtra election, the Election Commission described it as "unsubstantiated allegations." "Unsubstantiated allegations raised against the Electoral Rolls of Maharashtra are an affront to the rule of law. The Election Commission brought out all these facts in its reply to the INC on 24th December 2024 itself, which is available on ECI's website. It appears that all these facts are completely being ignored while raising such issues again and again," the ECI statement read.
