This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court has called out many of America's "prestigious employers" for discrimination against the "majority."
The comments came in a unanimous decision that concluded Marlean Ames was the victim of unconstitutional discrimination because she is part of the majority, heterosexuals, but was denied a promotion and then demoted while two gays were given those positions.
She sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, following the ruling, her case will return to the lower courts for a resolution.
The precedent, oddly, had been that members of a majority group such as heterosexuals were required to take an additional step in discrimination cases and document a "background" supporting the claim.
Thomas pointed out how ridiculous that was.
"The 'background circumstances' rule is nonsensical for an additional reason: It requires courts to assume that only an 'unusual employer' would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority. But, a number of this Nation's largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups," he charged.
Then he identified the discriminatory agenda being used.
"American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans… Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority," he said.
He blasted the lower court ruling that tossed Ames' case because of that "background" requirement.
"Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts. The 'background circumstances' rule—correctly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon."
He said requirement forced "a majority-group plaintiff to prove, in addition to the standard elements of a Title VII claim, that background circumstances 'support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' This additional requirement is a paradigmatic example of how judge-made doctrines can distort the underlying statutory text."
He noted that nothing in Title VII actually creates such a requirement.
The ruling is considered a huge precedent for reverse-discrimination cases.
