The appropriate term for the Supreme Court session to listen to oral presentations by lawyers is “verbal discussion,” but Wednesday's hearing Amesv. OhioYouth Services Ministry It is rarely qualified for discussion. Everyone agreed that in every aspect of the case, the strange rules governing employment discrimination must administer litigation in some parts of the country.
When Judge Neil Gorsuch removes it at some point, it appears there is a “radical consensus.”
Aimes Rules existing in some federal courts of appeals include rules that require “majority” employment discriminatory plaintiffs to carry a slightly higher proof burden than plaintiffs who are part of minority groups. This particular case includes a straight woman who was denied a promotion and later demoted. In both cases, the position she wanted was met by a gay employee.
In most federal courts, majority plaintiffs are not treated differently from minority plaintiffs. It coincides with the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court McDonald's v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. (1976) found that federal law “prohibits” racism against white people “on the same standards that apply.”
No one, including General T. Elliot Geyser, an Ohio lawyer who nominally took the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning to defend the Sixth Circuit's decision, supports this “background situation” rule. Geyser began his presentation with the declaration that “Ohio agrees that it is wrong to hold litigators to a higher standard.” Under questioning from Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Geiser agreed that plaintiff Marlene Ames in this case “should bear the same burden” as the gay plaintiff who filed similar allegations of discrimination. .
Therefore, there is little doubt as to what this case will look like. Both federal law and decisions McDonald's It is clear that employment discrimination cases filed by the majority of plaintiffs should proceed under the same conditions as other employment discrimination cases.
As far as there was disagreement between justice, it focused mainly on what Judge Elena Kagan described as “the scope of the unrelated thing.” Aimes case. For example, some justices have expressed interest in using this case to adjust the rules established by. McDonnell Douglas v. green (1973), an original case that identifies procedures that apply in many cases of employment discrimination.
However, by the end of the oral discussion, there seemed little desire for broad opinions. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has raised the possibility of a very short opinion simply saying, “The rules are the same,” whether a particular plaintiff is a majority or a minority. Even Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is often one of the most enthusiastic judiciary to remake long-standing laws, appears to support the proposal.
He said the court would send cases back to the Sixth Circuit to throw “background situation” rules to convey narrow opinions and consider other questions about how employment discrimination lawsuits work. I proposed it.
In other words, it's probably Aimes It would be a rather small opinion that reaffirms what the court said. McDonald'sand that rarely changes how discrimination lawsuits work in America. In a time of Republican-controlled courts and when many Republicans take a novel approach to Day, it is perhaps the best outcome we hope to defend greater workplace diversity.
