Total Articles: 8
Kansas City Verdict - Another Successful "Reverse Discrimination" Claim
Earlier this month I commented that one trend we might see this year was more "reverse discrimination" claims. See, 2011 -- the Year of the Non-minority? The outcome of a suit in a Kansas City courtroom yesterday does not prove me right, but it certainly does nothing to prove me wrong.
2011 --- the Year of the Non-minority?
Predicting what a new year will bring is a time honored tradition, but much like resolutions, most predictions rarely last longer than the first flip of the calendar. So rather than a long list, let me just start with one thing that I am guessing we might see, more cases where what might be thought to be "non-minority" employees are claiming that they have been treated differently because of their race.
High Court Issues Ruling In Reverse Bias Case.
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 ruling, that the City of New Haven's decision to discard test results that were used to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the City's race-based rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the "strong-basis-in-evidence standard," which the Court adopted to resolve conflicts between Title VII's disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions. According to the Court, "[f]ear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."
Court Limits Employer Options For Avoiding Bias Claims (pdf).
A central focus of Supreme Court nominee
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing
is her decision in a controversial reverse
discrimination case brought by white firefighters
in Connecticut. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the white firefighters, whereas
Judge Sotomayor was part of a 3 judge
panel which rejected that claim. Here’s what
happened and why you should be concerned.
Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Firefighters In Reverse Discrimination Case.
In one of the most important employment law cases of the decade, the U.S. Supreme Court handed employees a 5-4 victory by recognizing that even good-faith employment decisions can sometimes lead to results that give rise to lawsuits if those results fall more harshly on one class of employees than on another.
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Firefighters in High-Profile Discrimination Case, Sets New Standard for Evaluating Disparate Treatment Versus Disparate Impact.
Today the Supreme Court resolved an inherent tension between Title VII's disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions, holding that the mere desire to avoid liability under Title VII's disparate impact provision does not automatically justify a conscious decision to violate the statute's disparate treatment provision. See Ricci v. DeStefano (June 29, 2009). Title VII's disparate treatment provision prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of a protected category, while the disparate impact provision prohibits certain practices that are not intended to discriminate but, in fact, have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities. Recognizing the difficulty employers may face in balancing these competing interests, the Court adopted a "strong basis in evidence" test to be used in such situations. Under this standard, employers must demonstrate that a strong basis in evidence exists that their actions might violate Title VII's disparate impact provisions before employers can make race-based decisions.
Supreme Court Issues Ruling In Firefighter “Reverse” Discrimination Case.
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that the City of New Haven’s action in discarding test results that were used to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the City’s race-based rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the strong-basis-in-evidence standard, which the Court adopted to resolve any conflict between Title VII’s disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions. According to the Court, “[f]ear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”
Court Rejects Reverse Discrimination Claims Based on Speculative Evidence.
Plaintiff was employed by Rowan University as an administrative assistant for approximately five years but was transferred to a different department after she received successive unsatisfactory performance evaluations under a new Dean. Plaintiff was eventually terminated. Several months prior to the end of Plaintiff's tenure at the University, a Hispanic woman was hired for the administrative assistant position that Plaintiff previously held. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed several discrimination claims (including an allegation of reverse racial discrimination).
