ArticlesBringing a Claim for Reverse DiscriminationTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex or religion. Claims for reverse discrimination, i.e. cases where a member of the majority population brings a claim for discrimination, are permitted under the Act. Title VII does not differentiate between majority and minority populations and both are eligible to bring discrimination claims. The most common types of reserve discrimination claims are brought by white men who claim that they were not offered a job or were passed up for a promotion in favor of a minority or a woman, even though they had superior qualifications. Generally, to bring a claim for a Title VII discrimination claim, the plaintiff must be able to prove:
Background Circumstances TestIn a reserve discrimination claim, the plaintiff is not part of a protected class, but of the majority population. Thus, the first prong of the general test has to be altered. In some courts, plaintiffs in reverse discrimination cases must be able to meet the requirements of the "background circumstances" test. This test requires the plaintiff to be able to show sufficient background circumstances to make it reasonable to infer that the employer is unusual and discriminates against the majority. Examples of behaviors that may show sufficient background circumstances include an employer who has inconsistent selection procedures for employment, promotions or other work privileges or who shows favoritism to minorities. Also, if the plaintiff can show he or she had superior qualifications for the position or promotion, this may serve as evidence of sufficient background circumstances. Other Standards of ProofOther courts, however, disfavor the background circumstances test and instead require plaintiffs in reserve discrimination cases to meet other standards. This may include the plaintiff proving there is a reasonable probability that but for the plaintiff's status as white or male that he would have received the favorable employment action (i.e. the promotion or the position). Other courts may require the plaintiff to provide sufficient evidence for the court or jury to conclude from the totality of the circumstances that the employer treated the plaintiff less favorably because of his or her status as a member of the majority class. No matter the type of discrimination claim or the tests required by the particular jurisdiction, all plaintiffs in discrimination cases must be able to prove that they were intentionally discriminated against because of their membership in a protected class, whether it is because of gender, race, religion, national origin or color. For more information on filing a reverse discrimination claim, seek the advice of an employment law attorney experienced in handling these types of claims. He or she can evaluate your situation and discuss the possibilities for your case according to the applicable laws. Meeting with Your Employment Law AttorneyTo read and print out a copy of the checklist, please follow the link below. Meeting with Your Employment Law Attorney You can download a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader here Copyright © 2008 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent counsel for advice on any legal matter. Scott M. Pollins' law firm is located in southeastern Pennsylvania (Ardmore, Pennsylvania). Lawyer Scott Pollins assists clients in the Philadelphia-Main Line area, including the cities of Ardmore, Philadelphia, West Chester, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, Bala-Cynwyd, Villanova, Media, Doylestown, and Norristown, as well as Delaware County, Bucks County, Montgomery County, Chester County, and Philadelphia County in protecting their consumer rights. Pennsylvania • New Jersey • Maryland |