White individuals and straight people do not need to meet a higher burden of proof than members of minority groups to prevail in employment discrimination suits, the Supreme Court held June 5.

The immediate effect is to make so-called “reverse discrimination” claims easier to bring. However, the decision also solidifies the existing legal framework for workplace discrimination — a framework that the court’s ultra-conservative justices would like to upend. The result is not so much a win for conservatives or liberals as for legal stability.

The case, Ames v. Ohio, arose when a straight White woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services applied for a management position, which instead went to a lesbian candidate. She was subsequently demoted, and her old job was given to a gay man. Ames sued, alleging these decisions amounted to employment discrimination.

The rules of the game for suits like this are outlined in an important Supreme Court decision, McDonnell Douglas v. Green. Under this framework, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving circumstances that give rise to an inference of employment discrimination. The employer may then try to refute that inference by providing evidence that shows a legitimate reason for........

© The Korea Times