In two recent Supreme Court decisions, the evidentiary standard has been lessened in cases involving “reverse discrimination” claims and education-related ADA and Rehabilitation claims. These decisions, in conjunction with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) stance on DEI, foreshadow a potential influx of “reverse discrimination” claims targeting DEI and similar programs.
Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) requires the same evidentiary standard for all plaintiffs, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group. In doing so, the Court held that Title VII does not impose a heightened evidentiary standard on majority group plaintiffs, thereby rejecting the “background circumstances” rule.
In Ames, the petitioner was a heterosexual woman who worked for the Ohio Dept of Youth Services (the “Agency”). She interviewed for a management position, but the Agency ultimately hired a different candidate, a gay woman. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner was demoted from her previous role, and the Agency hired a gay man to fill the now vacant position.
The petitioner filed her lawsuit under Title VII, alleging she was denied a promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation. The District Court awarded summary judgment to the Agency and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. In rendering its decision, the lower courts held that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing a prima facie case because she failed to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
Justice Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, explained that both the text of Title VII and judicial precedent refute the application of the “background circumstances” rule. According to the Court, there is no distinction to be made between majority and minority group plaintiffs in Title VII’s disparate-treatment provisions, which focuses on individuals not groups. In other words, the “background circumstances” rule ignores the Court’s previously emphasized instruction to avoid “inflexible applications” of the prima facie standard. The Court therefore vacated the underlying judgment and remanded the case for application of the proper prima facie standard.
A.J.T., By and Through Her Parents, A.T. & G.T., v. Osseo Area Schools
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that students with disabilities do not have to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to establish discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (the “Rehabilitation Act”). In doing so, the Court overturned the heightened standard that had been applied in educational discrimination cases, thereby eliminating the showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” in ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims in the educational services context.
In A.J.T., the petitioner was a teenage girl who suffered from a rare form of epilepsy, which involved morning seizures that prevented her from attending school before noon. Because she was alert and able to learn in the afternoons, the petitioner received evening instruction until she moved to Minnesota, where her new school district denied her requests for accommodations.
The petitioner, through her parents, sued Osseo Area Schools under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act alleging disability discrimination. The District Court and the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of the school district. In reaching their decision, the lower courts applied the heightened standard requiring students to show that school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to prove discrimination.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, observed that nothing in the text of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act indicates that claims based on educational services should be subject to a separate and higher standard. In rejecting the heightened intent requirement, the Court held that students with disabilities are not required to show “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment” to prove discrimination. Rather, such claims should be subject to the same standard of intentional discrimination as in other contexts, which the Court recognized has been deemed satisfied in other circuits where the plaintiff shows “deliberate indifference,” a standard requiring a showing that the defendant disregarded a strong likelihood that the challenged action would violate federally protected rights. The Court therefore vacated the underlying judgment and remanded the case.
EEOC Celebratory Statement
EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas publicly supported and issued a statement celebrating the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ames. See here. The statement focused upon the perspective that all individuals deserve equal protection under civil rights statutes: “Under my leadership, the EEOC is committed to dismantling identity politics that have plagued our employment civil rights laws, by dispelling the notion that only the ‘right sort of plaintiff is protected by Title VII.” Ms. Lucas went on to say that employer DEI initiatives are no longer shielded, which is consistent with the strong messaging from the EEOC and DOJ that DEI-related discrimination will not be tolerated. See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/eeoc-and-justice-department-warn-against-unlawful-dei-related-discrimination.