DEFENDING FLORIDA EMPLOYERS: REVERSE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS AND DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS NOW HAVE THE SAME LEGAL STANDARD

In the employment context, “reverse discrimination” occurs when an employer discriminates against a member of a majority group, instead of a minority. While claims of unlawful reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are rare, they do occasionally occur. Some federal circuits treated reverse discrimination claims under Title VII differently than traditional discrimination claims involving minorities. The reverse discrimination plaintiffs were required to prove a heightened standard to establish their claims. In the recent Supreme Court case, Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court ended the practice of holding reverse discrimination plaintiffs to different standards. The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

Federal courts have utilized a burden shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) for analyzing claims of employment discrimination based on circumstantial evidence. The McDonnell Douglas test requires a plaintiff to initially establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which has four elements: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class, (2) the plaintiff was qualified for their position, (3) the plaintiff was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (4) the employer treated members outside of the protected class more favorably. If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to proffer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. However, several federal circuit courts added requirements on reverse discrimination plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case of discrimination beyond those set out in McDonnell Douglas. Ames now clarifies that reverse discrimination plaintiffs need only establish the four factors for a prima facie case set out in McDonnell Douglas.

In Ames, a heterosexual woman sued her employer under Title VII alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex. She alleged the employer hired her in 2004 and later promoted her to an administrator position. In 2019, the plaintiff applied for and interviewed for a management position, but was not hired to the position. Instead, a homosexual woman was hired for the position. A few days after interviewing for the position, the employer removed her from her administrative position and demoted her to a secretarial role, which resulted in a significant pay cut. The employer then hired a homosexual man to replace the plaintiff in her former administrative position. Thereafter, the employee filed a lawsuit against the employer under Title VII, alleging her employer discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation and sex. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that the employee failed to prove “background circumstances” suggesting the employer one of the rare few discriminating against a majority group. However, the Supreme Court reversed because the text of Title VII makes no distinction between minority and majority groups. Title VII states that it is unlawful to discriminate against “any individual” in the terms and conditions of employment. The reference to “any individual,” established the same protections for every individual, regardless of whether the individual belongs to a minority or majority group. The Supreme Court additionally supported its decision using its prior Title VII precedent, which does not distinguish between standards applied to majority and minority groups. Therefore, there was no basis to impose additional requirements on majority group plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ames will have little impact on employers in Florida because the Eleventh Circuit and Florida law never implemented a background circumstances standard for reverse discrimination plaintiffs. Florida employers should remain vigilant to protect themselves against discrimination claims regardless of whether they are normal or reverse discrimination claims.

The Miami business litigation lawyers of the Mavrick Law Firm also represent clients in Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. This article does not serve as a substitute for legal advice tailored to a particular situation.