Abstract
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against employment discrimination. In suits based on this protection, the plaintiff must typically be able to satisfy the four-prong McDonnell Douglas test in order to make a prima facie case and avoid summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Although Title VII fully protects all plaintiffs, the first prong of this test historically requires the plaintiff to show membership in a minority group. The United States Courts of Appeals are, however, split on what standard to require in reverse discrimination cases. There are currently four approaches: one requiring the plaintiff to show certain “background circumstances” about the employer, one requiring the plaintiff to provide “sufficient evidence” in light of the totality of circumstances, one accepting either “background circumstances” or “sufficient evidence,” and one holding that the first prong is a mere formality given that all people belong to a “protected class.” Each of the U.S. Courts of Appeals have addressed this issue to some extent, but the exact boundaries of the circuit split are contested and poorly defined. This Note therefore seeks to provide an overview of each circuit’s approach and argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should adopt the Third Circuit’s “sufficient evidence” approach in its pending decision for Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.
Recommended Citation
Allen, Emerson Lawrence
(2025)
"Equality or Equity?: Weighing Prima Facie Cases in Reverse Discrimination Claims,"
Helms School of Government Undergraduate Law Review: Vol. 4:
Iss.
2, Article 2.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/helmsundergraduatelawreview/vol4/iss2/2