Justices rule discrimination laws protect all, even majority groups

Washington – On Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that those who complained about prejudice were white or black, homosexual or flat, regardless of whether they were flat, the country’s laws of fighting against discrimination were applied equally to all employees.

One Short and unanimous opinionAdjustment of justice and wrongly rejects the opinion that the “majority group members should show more evidence of discrimination in order to sue and win.

Instead, justice said 1964 Human Rights Law The prohibition of discrimination in the workplace against the “any person”, which is exposed to discrimination due to race, color, religion, national origin and gender, including sexual orientation, is always prohibited.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, “The majority group does not make any distinction between plaintiffs and minority plaintiffs,” the law said.

The decision plays a discrimination case brought about by Marlean Ames, a woman who says that it has been destroyed and discriminated against by a lesbian with supervisor. Later, a homosexual man with less experience.

Ames is a heterosexual woman. His employer filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Youth Services Department and claimed that he had been discriminated against because of his sexual orientation.

However, a federal judge rejected the claim of discrimination and the 6th circuit court in Cincinnati approved this decision. In doing so, judges said that he could not indicate “background conditions” or the statistical evidence that he was “unusual employer who is discriminating against the majority”.

Virginia University Faculty of Law students appealed the case to the Supreme Court. 6. The circuit and several other courts continued to use a two -way approach to allegations of discrimination.

However, this is not standard in most of the nation. For example, they said that the California -based 9th circuit court did not follow this approach that requires more evidence of discrimination than whites or men or heterosexuals.

However, students said that the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law throughout the country.

Although the case did not involve directly or diversity, equality and involvement, President Trump has attracted more attention because of his efforts to get rid of his policies.

Jackson said that the Supreme Court has constantly rejected the view that discrimination laws have been applied differently to different groups of people for more than 50 years.

Inside Griggs vs Duke Power In 1971 “We said this”[d]For any group, minority or majority, the preference of the iscrimator is exactly what the Congress forbids. “

A few years later, the court rejected the two -way approach, “This title VII. [of the Civil Rights Act] Race discrimination forbidden against white petitions[at] If it were negroes, the case for applicable standards. “

For Biden and Trump administrations, lawyers called the court to clarify the 6th circuit to invalidate and to clarify that there was no double standard to decide on allegations of discrimination.

According to an accepting view, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the “majority” in the workplace is different from the workplace.

“Women are most of the employees in certain industries such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries such as construction.”

“It is even more difficult to define the ‘majority’ in the context of the race,” he wrote. “American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all into a handful of groups has become more inconsistent.”

The court’s decision at the Ames and Ohio Ministry of Youth Services said that the Ohio court should re -open and rethink Ames’s claim of discrimination.

Experts in the laws of discrimination, the decision will have an impact on some regions, but others will have an impact, he said.

“As a practical issue, he could get rid of a movement to reject more ‘reverse discrimination’ cases, Ev A lawyer Evan Parness, a lawyer at Covengon law firm in New York, said.

Although the decision did not significantly changed how the Federal Courts in California works, Elizabeth Beske, a professor of law of law at Washington, has effects on some courts in other parts of the country.

After a lawsuit was filed for a white man Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company, the “Background Conditions” rule was first applied in DC courts. Court, “Defrie[d] He is common sense to argue that the promotion of a black employee justify the inference of prejudice against white colleagues in our current society. “

Columbia Law Professor OLATUNDE C. Johnson said, “The opinion is not surprising. The title depends on a simple and logical reading of VII. The ‘background conditions’ approach of the 6th circuit was not typical, so I don’t expect the case to change the employment discrimination cases to a significant extent.”

Since the firm Fox Rothschild’s lawyer is rare because the decision is unanimously, it shows an undisputed and “quite simple yeri perspective in the case to demand extra evidence from white, heterosexual or other majority groups.

And it represents the court’s effort to facilitate and eliminate the need for additional steps in the case.

There is a question about how the change is applied, but McGinnis does not expect any problems.

“There is some potential for mischief, but I don’t think there will be much changes in the daily operations of many employers or courts, Mc said McGinnis. “Short answer should not change much.”

Savage was reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles.