The NYT reports.
The standards for proving workplace discrimination under a federal civil rights law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”...The text of the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not draw distinctions based on whether the person claiming discrimination is a member of a majority group. But some courts have required plaintiffs from majority groups to prove an additional element if they lack direct evidence of discrimination: “background circumstances that support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
It's not that unusual!
పోస్ట్లు
100 కామెంట్లు:
During pride month SCOTUS!?! PRIDE MONTH!?! (hat tip Ace)
This had to get to the Supreme Court to make a unanimous ruling that our laws aren’t weighted based on sexual preference.
I have lgbt-fatigue. Billions feel the same way. Some of the corporations are catching on too...always late to the party aren't they?
I’ll take the win.
Transgender gives way to gender by order and merit? Progress? You've come a long way, baby.
Pride month? Lions, lionesses, and their [unPlanned] cubs in gay parade.
Sane ruling. Another 9 to 0 ruling today barred Mexico's 'ambitious' lawsuit against gun makers. Another ruling supported Catholic charities tax exempt status.
Sanity today, so far.
"Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, 'does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.'"
She still can't define what a woman is, and maybe "majority group" is about as close as she can get for now.
Baby steps...
It's not that unusual!
Unfortunately, no it isn’t.
Another ruling supported Catholic charities tax exempt status.
But didn’t the SPLC and Chris Wray’s FBI say that Catholic organizations, presumably including Cstholic charities, were terrorist organizations?
I’m still waiting for my employer to celebrate international Men’s Day or straight sex month.
Brown Jackson was caught in a bit of a bind, wasn't she? You really shouldn't be able to sue for discrimination based on purely statistical analyses of racial outcomes but Brown Jackson realized the trap that argument lays and, so, tried to finesse it with the bit about it being very abnormal for a majority race to be discriminated against which Althouse immediately noted.
Althouse said…
“It's not that unusual!” The
Cue Tom Jones
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2h1XHxVQIVY&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
Damn you, Wince!
The civil rights law also said no discrimination based on race. that obviously makes discrimination against white people = aka affirmative action = illegal. But somehow Grandma O'connor and before her Justice Powell in Bakke decided that didn't matter. Of course, white don't care if other white get hurt. They only care if it affect them. Personally. That's why they're losers.
A majority color? Peach. White (i.e. albino) is a minority's minority. And majority sex? There are more females that populate our world, hence the one-child Choice and wicked solution. And feminine gender ("straight"), too. The audacity.
Leland said, "I’m still waiting for my employer to celebrate international Men’s Day or straight sex month."
Patience. Corpos are "always late to the party". This is their 1st real year of homo-abjuration. It'll probably take another 5 years for Men's Day...20 for Straight Month.
Baby steps...
Tom gots the moves !
Any time a better qualified candidate for a job is passed over for a far less qualified candidate simply because the less qualified candidate was a minority- that right there is illegal discrimination according to this SCOTUS decision.
Brown Jackson, Kagen, and Sotomayor realized that they couldn't be seen making the argument that this lawsuit couldn't proceed because the plaintiff was a member of the racial majority because it makes the two-tiered justice system too obvious.
"The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers..."
"... saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group."
People have noticed that the primary beneficiaries of all of these DEI/AA programs are White Women.
White Women have decided they will be harem girls for elite men and do everything they can to push the agenda of elite men.
It is going to be a rough time for white women over the next decade until they eventually figure out a better set of goals and find out they shouldn't serve at the behest of elite men.
All I have to say is that I've seen a couple of different news outlets spin it as "Reverse" Discrimination. They need to stop that shit. There's no "Reverse" about it, it's just plain discrimination under the law.
How in the hell did Ketani Jackson Five even figure out that this person was a woman in the first place?
She's not a biologist.
When you boil it all down this coalition between Elite Men and White women makes sense as a political coalition.
Elite Men give preferential hiring to White Women in air conditioned jobs that are generally positions of power of non-elite men.
Elite Men get sexual access to a harem of dutiful supplicants.
White Women subjugate non-elite men on behalf of the elite men using a series of title 7 and title 9 laws and sexual harassment bullshit.
White Women get paid to work in air conditioned comfort the same or more than men who do difficult dangerous work in jobs women would never do.
White women vote for Elite predatory men.
This is all pretty standard political coalition stuff.
I often wonder if people in 500 years won't look back on this fruit-filled era the way we look back on witch trials being a symptom of rye-ergot poisoning...that there was something in the water. Covid pales in comparison to the last 60 years of mass formation psychosis.
Not only are queers 'not a majority', they're not even a large minority. Thinking society was ever going to structure itself to placate 10% (at best) of the sexually perplexed in the long term is truly delusional.
And they call us "psychos". The gall.
All I have to say is that I've seen a couple of different news outlets spin it as "Reverse" Discrimination. They need to stop that shit
I'm surprised the usual suspects at SCOUTS failed to signal with that language...
harem girls for elite men and do everything they can to push the agenda of elite men
Keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable, and the "burden" of evidence sequestered in sanctuary states.
Feminists? And other class-disordered ideologues. DEIsts.
Elite Men get sexual access to a harem of dutiful supplicants.
The Handmaiden's Tail
A unanimous decision -- nice work by Roberts. Having Jackson-Brown write the decision was another nice touch as it emphasizes that even she is on board with this.
The Great Vibe Shift rolls on.
Now I've got Tom Jones in my head. I'd prefer Delilah, but It's Not Unusual will do...
Re: Pride Month, at my workplace (USPS in Florida), the June bulletin boards have conspicuously downplayed Pride Month. In past years, there would have been two or three glass cases festooned with rainbow colors celebrating LGBT+ icons. This year, there is only a small piece of paper mentioning Pride Month, along with similarly sized papers for Juneteenth, Men’s Health Month and Adopt A Cat Month in the same case. Meanwhile, there is a big poster of first Postmaster Benjamin Franklin in another case and some postal history posters in nearby cases. It’s refreshing, actually.
KBJ wrote for the majority? Wow!
This year marks the 250th anniversary of the USPS. They have come up with a pretty cool new logo for use this year, although it won’t be replacing the corporate logo that has been in use since 1993.
Why it’s almost as though that Justice Chick was wearing a blindfold.
A little Sade: Smooth Operator, and all that jazz, are always welcome.
White women find my big air-conditioner unit pretty damn irresistible.
"Having Jackson-Brown write the decision ..."
They're going to force her to write all of these anti-white discrimination decisions. That way, Democrats can't complain about these decisions or they will be racist.
Wince said...
[Althouse said…
“It's not that unusual!” The]
"Cue Tom Jones"
I'll see your Tom Jones and raise you one Dancing Nose.
"that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority"
they were also arguing, that IF they got rid of the "heightened burden", then the courts would be SWAMPED with millions of cases since EVERY employer discriminates against the majority
It's not that unusual!
Bingo.
Title VII bars employment discrimination against “any individual” “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
These are the things that DEI targets, and this decision is on open hunting call for going after every single company with a DEI program
They had Jackson write the "you can't discriminate against honkies" decision, and Kagan write the "you can't sue gun manufacturers" decision, because they're losing all the close cases, and SCOTUS tries to make it so every member gets to write the same number of decisions every year.
The more unanimous decisions written by the lefties, the better
"It's not that unusual!" That hypothesis will soon be tested. Corollary: watch business un-DEI faster. Yet to be determined: how to do majority non-hires, say at universities, get justice?
A disturbing concession by the groupthinkers that may suggest more squish coming from the Roberts wing.
Yancey Ward said...
Jackson realized the trap that argument lays and, so, tried to finesse it with the bit about it being very abnormal for a majority race to be discriminated against which Althouse immediately noted.
Can't blame that on Jackson, the "unusual" was from the 6th Circuit.
Here's the concurrence:
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks....
So, kudos for Jackson, she wrote a racial discrimination decision with both Thomas and Alito joined in full
The other case decided today was SCOTUS's unanimous reversal of the Catholic Charities case where the WI Supreme Court denied a religious exemption for paying unemployment taxes to Catholic Charities. The Wise Latina (and presumed Catholic) wrote that one. Total vindication for Rebecca Bradley's dissent in the WI Sup Ct case.
"Yet to be determined: how to do majority non-hires, say at universities, get justice?"
Class action lawsuits supported by the Trump DoJ is how it has to be done.
"These are the things that DEI targets, and this decision is on open hunting call for going after every single company with a DEI program"
Yes, but here is what is going to happen- because of that "unusual" part of the majority decision, it will be cited over and over again that reverse discrimination is so rare as to make it easy to dismiss such lawsuits at the district court level- it is literally why that phrase was included. Roberts was foolish to let Brown Jackson write that opinion.
". . . Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not draw distinctions based on whether the person claiming discrimination is a member of a majority group."
Because if it did you'd then have equal protection issues.
@Clyde, there's squawk elsewhere on the web that a not so insignificant amount of homos and lesbos are uber-pissed at trans for sucking the oxygen out of the room...the whole "LBG w/o the T" folks that showed up last year demanding a year "without pride".
It would appear a schism exists and has so for some time but we're only now seeing the signs. And schism is the correct word - for religious quarrel - because that what their movement has really become. A religion.
North . . .: The same people who say “reverse discrimination” (and more) say “biological male” — as if there are non-biological males. This tacitly concedes ground to the wokies.
“The unusual case” formulation is covert judicial notice. If an advocate tried to convince the Court that it’s a matter of common knowledge that employers discriminate against “majority” individuals at a higher rate than others, they’d get nowhere unless they had evidence in the appellate record.
Yancey Ward said...
Roberts was foolish to let Brown Jackson write that opinion.
It should be obvious by now that Roberts is not being foolish.
He is doing exactly what a traitor would do.
Anyone familiar with Catholic Charities will recognize that decision was not a conservative victory. Another government backhander for a Woke-as-shit NGO. The conservative justices followed the law rather than make shit up, but, in the real world, not in the interests of the sane. Tax the churches. All of them.
If I was gay i would want to kick the trans-dudes in the nutsack. That's what you do with hijackers, and mentally-ill hijackers at that. In that genre, and back in saner times, there is always the classic https://youtu.be/Hk4ueY9wVtA?si=B8mR5wNOr4SzBfyu
Gay Rights Parade Sets Gay Rights Back 50 Years</a
This is going to be one more hammer with which Trump will hit Harvard and the Ivy League schools. Harvard even issued some stats bragging about how it has favored minorities over majorities in hiring, promotion and admissions.
I will note that a lot commenters here seem to think illegal discrimination has been proved. It hasn’t. Back to the lower courts.
That said, the obvious takeaway is that if her employer wanted to demote her and give her job to someone else, they should have picked another straight woman.
Here’s a link to a story about the USPS 250 graphic that I mentioned earlier, so you can see what it looks like:
https://news.usps.com/2025/04/25/usps-unveils-a-milestone-marker/
Left Bank makes accusations without proof. And no. Her company shouldn’t be able to just swap a straight woman with another straight woman, you sexist heterophobic asshole. That is still discrimination.
The only question they were answering here was very narrow: can people in a majority group be held to a higher burden of proof than those in a minority group. So their "final say" here is strictly on that question: no, they cannot be.
What happens now is the case is "remanded" (sent back to the lower courts). The lower courts will hear the actual discrimination claim again with this additional guidance from the Supreme Court. This is very very common and judicial reporting never makes this very clear.
The Supreme Court embarrassed the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority. A unanimous reversal. Fucking F minus
Only 50 or so comments, read through them. Not one of them suggest, as Left Bank and Kak claim, that this woman won her case. Most are simply gobsmacked that it took the Supreme Court to point out what the law clearly says about discrimination. In fact, a few point out that other news media is calling this reverse discrimination, as even Left Bank suggests, which is noted by others is still discriminatory and illegal, except Left Bank cause they are sexual heterophobic asshole that can’t give up discrimination.
I think we can all agree those who disagree with us are perfidious traitors.
they are incapable of embarassment like the 9th Circus,
Earnest Prole said...
“White women find my big air-conditioner unit pretty damn irresistible.”
I like big AC and I cannot lie
You other sisters can't deny
That when a guy walks in with no sweat on his waist
And a chill look on his face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
'Cause you notice that unit was stuffed
Deep in the window of his condo
I'm hooked and I want it pronto.
My sweat pores don’t want none unless you got Ruud, hon.
Baby got HVAC.
I was going to "IANAL but" Left Bank's comment, but Kak stepped in first: the ruling is that a member of a (purportedly) non-oppressed non-minority group can't be held to a higher standard in proving a discrimination case than a member of a (purportedly) oppressed minority group. Thanks, Kak.
Left Bank, believe it or not, this commentariat doesn't tend to be a celebration of grievances. We generally really do want laws to be applied equally. It makes some of us angry and frustrated when it's not, but that's not the same as claiming victimhood for ourselves.
Or so, at any rate, is my take.
" the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
I wish I hadn't been drinking coffee when I read that.
Nose dance? No... But Tom , Live at 80yrs. THE Man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXvnkp4EuKw
Perhaps not all that surprising that Ketanji-Brown wrote the opinion, in light of her Seate testimony. The 6th Circuit assumption that the plaintiff was a straight woman was baseless: for all anyone knows "she" was a man, a deeply closeted gay man at that.
Earnest Prole said...
White women find my big air-conditioner unit pretty damn irresistible.
But the really love it when you pull out your big 10 inch!
Why did Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cross the road?
To get to the Other Pride.
Yancey Ward said...
Yes, but here is what is going to happen- because of that "unusual" part of the majority decision,
Yancy, you are COMPLETELY barking up the wrong tree on this one.
It was the lower court (6th Circuit) that made that claim:
Like the District Court, the Sixth Circuit held that Ames had failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown “ ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’ ”
Held: The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.
The ONLY places where Jackson's opinion contains the word "unusual" is when quoting the lower court, the one she's overturning.
There is NOTHING in this decision to make the DEI crowd happy
This is a significant decision. Even if (as some rightly point out) the scope of the decision is actually quite narrow.
I'm old enough to remember when SCOTUS decisions were "the law of the land" and we need to sit down and be quiet and respect them.
yes, but we have seen how lower courts have used even broad decisions of this type,
Everybody should be happy. Take the win.
when the reverse is true, they expand it to the hilt,
FormerLawClerk said...
"Having Jackson-Brown write the decision ..."
"They're going to force her to write all of these anti-white discrimination decisions. That way, Democrats can't complain about these decisions or they will be racist."
And in the future Democrats will be able to claim she is non-partisan.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf
Go read the decision, people, it's not long, 9 pages for her opinion. But here are some highlights:
As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.
By establishing the same protections for every “individual”—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.
We made the same point even more explicitly in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U. S. 273 (1976), a few years later. The employer in that case had argued that certain forms of discrimination against White employees fell outside the reach of Title VII. Id., at 280, n. 8. But we rejected that argument, holding that “Title VII prohibit[ed] racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.” (Note, Jackson added that emphasis in this decision, to beat in the point that "it's the same rules for everyone)
We granted review to consider the validity of the “background circumstances” rule, and we reject that rule for the reasons set forth above.
It's 9-0 for "discriminating against white males is just as illegal as discriminating against black lesbians". Take the win
Rick67 said, "This is a significant decision. Even if (as some rightly point out) the scope of the decision is actually quite narrow."
To both quote and paraphrase Left Bank's statement, no one needs to "prove illegal discrimination" when everyone - a majority - are convinced that's what's going on. This is about infowar for normies, and normies are waking up to the fact queerness is a political movement protected by their own naively tolerant largesse.
This is going to end, and Howard's right that we should take the win and enjoy it. More are coming.
If anyone is wondering about my language; I dropped a quarter somewhere and stayed overnight in Austin. During the time, I had an epiphany on how to speak to progressives. Use the language they use and understand. Randomly drop cuss words here and there, add phobic to words, and be sure to call out their unconscious bias. We should all try to reach out and get through to them.
I wonder how many white actors will file discrimination claims against the agencies that make TV ads.
Greg, Brown Jackson believes it is rare- that is all that matters and she reiterated this belief by quoting it. You don't have to believe it, that is your prerogative, but district court judges will use this claim of unusualness to set a higher bar regardless of this present decision. What isn't going to happen is that white people get to use disparate impact studies to file discrimination lawsuits- not without SCOTUS having to get involved over and over.
they call it strict scrutiny, it's like laches or standing,
Strike three for DEI. Let the lawsuits begin.
What is remarkable (or not) is that all 3 progessives on court dissented in the two 2023 cases that overturned affirmative action (Jackson was recused in the Harvard case, but dissented in the one against UNC). Square those two decisions for these three justices. If you are employing affirmative action on behalf of a minority, you are prima facie discriminating against a member of either the majority or another unpreferred minority. The Asians' lawyers in the case had more than prima facie evidence and yet Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented. What changed in 2 years?
What about holding a spot for a pedophile/rapist in the Oval Office? Are those protected classes?
Elon Musk is spilling the tea on the real reason the Epstein files are still under wraps.
NorthOfTheOneOhOne: "But the really love it when you pull out your big 10 inch!" Pretty damned impressed that you linked to Moose Jackson and not Aerosmith.
The transgender spectrum is integrated in the woke of climate change. Progress.... one step forward? Perhaps.
DEIscrimination (e.g. racism, sexism, genderism, political congruence) is progressing poorly in the wake of woke.
Yancey Ward said...
Greg, Brown Jackson believes it is rare- that is all that matters and she reiterated this belief by quoting it.
No, she didn't. She repeated it because that was the Question granted by the Court when it took the case.
The ONLY places that appears in her decision is where she's quoting them so she can then immediately say they're full of sh!t.
It's nine pages, read it. I'm leaning towards "it's so short because she had to write it herself, because none of her clerks would write something so right wing and anti DEI"
This is a link to the "Question Presented":
https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/23-01039qp.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." App. 5a.
You can not legitimately trash KJB for simply quoting the question that the Court voted to answer. Especially when she NEVER used that outside of quoting them to say they're wrong.
When our currently divided Supreme Court is unanimous on a decision, you know it is a no-brainer.
Actually have personal experience on this issue. Worked at Chicago corporation where the only (all well-qualified) women who got promoted were either: 1) 2nd wives of men who had school-age children by their 1st wife, who swore they'd never have kids of their own (and NEVER did); 2) self-disclosed lesbians, who swoare they'd never have kids of their own. The straight women, whether married or single, were otherwise not promoted, and often found themselves assigned all the work expected of their immediate team supervisor too. Number of straight women eventually quite firm, filed grievances, though outcomes are unknown. Back then, daring to file a formal EEOC grievance was also assurance you'd never get a position at another firm in our industry, or perhaps within larger business community.
Pretty damned impressed that you linked to Moose Jackson and not Aerosmith.
Seconded.
If you've spent time with HR people, you may have noticed that many of them are insincere in that dimwitted way that says "you have no idea that I'm being insincere".
For them, quotas are a godsend, as they merely have to deliver the quota, and the responsibility for the mismatches goes elsewhere.
Of course "minority" on "majority" discrimination is not unusual. I have been told twice I was the better (frankly, far, far more qualified) job candidate but they were hiring the minority candidate because "it seemed right" or "the City of Atlanta won't let me hire a white person."
And then there's academia.
And when I went to the EEOC to file charges on the City case, the director tried to get in my pants and my paperwork was disappeared. He was later fired for sexual harassment.
@Greg the Class Traitor: "They had Jackson write the "you can't discriminate against honkies" decision, and Kagan write the "you can't sue gun manufacturers" decision...The more unanimous decisions written by the lefties, the better"
Yes. This is the only way to stamp down the rise of "I do what I want" politics at the state and local level. There must be unanimous decisions on controversial topics. The intent of many laws has been flipped 180 degrees by redefining language (especially DEI/transgender and guns).
Perhaps this will mark the end of that legal era.
About time. I'm stunned the decision was written by Justice Jackson.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.