Supreme Court discrimination ruling

[TSwizzle]

The reliable Grauniad uses the headline "reverse discrimination" whatever that means.

The US supreme court made it easier on Thursday for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace “reverse discrimination”, reviving the case of an Ohio woman who claimed that she did not get a promotion at a state agency because she is heterosexual. The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, threw out a lower court‘s decision rejecting a civil rights lawsuit by the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, against her employer, Ohio’s department of youth services. Ames argued that she was denied a promotion within the Ohio department of youth services because she is heterosexual. A lesbian was hired for the job instead, and Ames was eventually demoted to a lower position with lower pay, with a gay man taking her previous role. The dispute centered on how plaintiffs like Ames must try to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex – including sexual orientation.

Teh Grauniad

9-0.

 

[bilby]

"reverse discrimination" whatever that means.

It means discrimination against a majority group, as opposed to the more common case where it is a minority who are the victims of discrimination.

You're welcome.

 

[Bomb#20]

No it doesn't. Women are a majority group and nobody calls discrimination against women by that name. "Reverse" appears to mean discrimination against people progressives hold responsible for "real" discrimination.

 

[thebeave]

From the article:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is liberal-leaning, wrote for the court on Thursday morning: “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.”

In other words, the bar for discrimination against a historical majority group is not any higher than minority groups, which could make winning reverse discrimination cases in the future easier for future plaintiffs.

I agree with her statement and the ruling, but maybe I'm missing something. Isn't KBJ's appointment to SCOTUS itself in violation of this ruling? Afterall, Joe Biden specially said he was going to appoint a black woman, thereby excluding whites (plus other races) and men from consideration of this job. Just seems a little weird to me.

 

[NoHolyCows]

From the article:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is liberal-leaning, wrote for the court on Thursday morning: “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.”

In other words, the bar for discrimination against a historical majority group is not any higher than minority groups, which could make winning reverse discrimination cases in the future easier for future plaintiffs.

I agree with her statement and the ruling, but maybe I'm missing something. Isn't KBJ's appointment to SCOTUS itself in violation of this ruling? Afterall, Joe Biden specially said he was going to appoint a black woman, thereby excluding whites (plus other races) and men from consideration of this job. Just seems a little weird to me.

No Title VII violation with Biden for various reasons.

NHC

 

[Gospel]

I agree with this ruling if it means that the same legal standards apply to everyone under Title VII.

 

[Gospel]

From the article:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is liberal-leaning, wrote for the court on Thursday morning: “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.”

In other words, the bar for discrimination against a historical majority group is not any higher than minority groups, which could make winning reverse discrimination cases in the future easier for future plaintiffs.

I agree with her statement and the ruling, but maybe I'm missing something. Isn't KBJ's appointment to SCOTUS itself in violation of this ruling? Afterall, Joe Biden specially said he was going to appoint a black woman, thereby excluding whites (plus other races) and men from consideration of this job. Just seems a little weird to me.

Bruh, the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, gives the president the authority to nominate Supreme Court justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate. It doesn’t restrict how or why a president selects nominees. So no, it’s not a violation of the ruling. Just like it wasn’t a violation when Trump said, “It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman,” or “I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life judges.” Presidents can and do use personal, ideological, or identity-based criteria all the time, it’s political, not illegal.