Will SCOTUS heighten the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in "reverse discrimination" cases?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Department of Youth Services for sex discrimination under Title VII. She alleged that she was passed over for a promotion, then demoted, and that a gay man was subsequently promoted into her former position—all due to her sexual orientation (straight).

Ames claimed sex discrimination, but the 6th Circuit disagreed, ruling that she failed to establish the "'background circumstances' to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

What are these "background circumstances"? According to the 6th Circuit, plaintiffs typically prove this with evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay individuals) made the employment decision at issue or with statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against the majority group. Ames lost because she provided neither.

And that's the issue SCOTUS will decide—does "discrimination" under Title VII mean discrimination regardless of majority or minority status, or does it take on a different meaning when the claim comes from a member of the majority class? Does a member of the majority class have to show something "more" to establish discrimination.

Cards Against Liability

Have you ever played Cards Against Humanity? For the unfamiliar, it's a party game where players take turns filling in the blanks of absurd or provocative prompts from black cards with ridiculous or offensive white card responses. A judge then picks the funniest or most outrageous combination. The game is intentionally offensive, dark, and politically incorrect, often touching on sensitive topics like race, gender, religion, and politics.

It's also a ton of fun … in the right setting. The workplace is not that setting.

That's precisely what led to the hostile work environment claim in O'Connor v. Soul Surgery.

This is not normal

THIS IS NOT NORMAL

That was the subject line of an email sent by an EEOC judge to all of her coworkers in response to an agency directive that no orders be issued in LGBTQ+ discrimination cases without first being reviewed by headquarters. The directive was in response to Trump's executive order mandating that the federal government recognize only two sexes.

The judge, Karen Ortiz, urged her colleagues to resist. "It's time for us to embody the civil rights work we were hired to do and honor the oath to the Constitution that we all took," she wrote in her email.

To her surprise, she did not receive a single response. She soon learned why. Her email had been deleted from everyone's inbox. When she followed up, calling for the EEOC's acting chair to resign, the agency cut off her ability to send emails entirely.

WIRTW #748: the 'tracking' edition

"I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That's out there. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it. This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad. But it makes no difference."
— Donald J. Trump, 9/10/24, Presidential Debate

"They've been told officially, legally, in every way, that we have nothing to do with Project 25."
— Donald J. Trump, 8/22/24, Arizona-Mexico border

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Take a look at the Project 2025 Tracker and tell me: Given the striking alignment between Trump's Executive Orders and the 900-page policy playbook he repeatedly disavowed during the campaign, is he governing straight from that right-wing, authoritarian, Christian Nationalist manifesto?

Because it sure looks like it.

Or, to borrow from another Trump favorite: "Believe me."

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

EEOC's policy shift to "protect American workers" is all about punishing non-Americans

If you hire non-Americans, the EEOC is coming after your business.

In a press release, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas says the following: 

"The EEOC is putting employers and other covered entities on notice: if you are part of the pipeline contributing to our immigration crisis or abusing our legal immigration system via illegal preferences against American workers, you must stop.… Many employers have policies and practices preferring illegal aliens, migrant workers, and visa holders or other legal immigrants over American workers—in direct violation of federal employment law prohibiting national origin discrimination."

Lucas's statement—while technically correct under Title VII—creates more problems than it solves. 

A tale of two approaches to noncompete agreements

Big news on noncompetes—from two very different directions.

First, the NLRB just quietly backed off its aggressive stance that most noncompetes violate federal labor law. The agency's Acting General Counsel rescinded 2023's memo that took that position, signaling a retreat from treating noncompetes as an unfair labor practice.

Meanwhile, Ohio lawmakers are headed in the opposite direction. Last month, they introduced SB 11, a bipartisan bill that would ban nearly all noncompetes in the state. If it passes, it'll be a game-changer, giving employees much more freedom to jump to competitors.

EEOC moves to dismiss transgender-discrimination lawsuits

"EEOC seeks to drop race discrimination cases brought on behalf of Black workers, citing Trump's executive order."

This is not a real headline.

But this is: "EEOC seeks to drop transgender discrimination cases, citing Trump's executive order."