Annual Ad-Free Subscription… Join the Fight and Support Revolver Now…
Check out the new merch! — Donate…
Sign up for our email list… Stay on the bleeding edge…
It’s happening, finally. The tide is really starting to turn. In yet another blow to the DEI regime, the Supreme Court has unanimously sided with a straight white woman who says she was passed over for a promotion because of her sexual orientation. That’s right. The same court that once delivered the left one of its biggest victories with the Bostock decision just delivered a 9-0 ruling that breathes new life into “reverse discrimination” claims, and this time, it’s the so-called majority fighting back.
READ MORE: Teen suspended for using term ‘illegal alien’ just beat the system and cashed in…
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas summed it up best:
Now, if this moment feels familiar, that’s because it is. Three years ago, Revolver laid out a roadmap for exactly this kind of pushback against woke corporate tyranny and its DEI pushers. At the time, this piece was considered provocative. But today, it’s looking downright prophetic.
America First Republicans Must Crush the DIE Industry
In the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision, which found that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually forbade employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status all along, we learned that “[o]nly the written word is law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.” If that’s true, then race discrimination claims by white males should be subject to the same standard of proof as everyone else’s. But as anybody unfortunate enough to work in corporate America knows, that’s not the case. Any white male’s claims of illegal discrimination will be subject to a higher standard of proof. Many federal courts require white male plaintiffs to prove the existence of “background circumstances” which “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” In post-George Floyd America, the notion that anti-white discrimination is “unusual” is laughable.
The practical realities of this country’s civil rights laws make suggestions from those like David French that all we need is “robust enforcement” of those very statutes the epitome of a fool’s errand. Such proposals, particularly under a Biden Administration, should not be taken seriously. Congress or the Supreme Court must lift this blatant, Bostock-defying double standard. If they do, then Woke Kapital can inherit a whirlwind of Title VII litigation on account of their diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) programming. And all it will take is one jury verdict. If plaintiffs can collect multi-million dollar judgments against companies like Tesla for “racial abuse,” then so should working-class white Americans huddled into Maoist struggle sessions to genuflect on how they are deriving residual benefits from the transatlantic slave trade. States should similarly amend their civil rights laws, if necessary, and extend individual liability to the “professionals” overseeing these hate-filled, Marxist struggle sessions.
Read the entire article here:
Disney Is Just the Beginning: Four Ways To Bring Woke Capital to Its Knees
Now that the door is open, let’s take a look inside at the case.
READ MORE: Trump’s got a new mission that’ll kick deportations into overdrive…
The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, says she was passed over for a promotion at the Ohio Department of Youth Services because she’s heterosexual. Instead, the job went to a lesbian, and to make things messier, Ames was later demoted and replaced by a gay man. That’s when the legal battle started to take shape, and it exposed a blatant double standard facing majority plaintiffs under Title VII.
Ames argued that she was denied a promotion within the Ohio department of youth services because she is heterosexual. A lesbian was hired for the job instead, and Ames was eventually demoted to a lower position with lower pay, with a gay man taking her previous role.
The dispute centered on how plaintiffs like Ames must try to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex – including sexual orientation. Some judges require that those in so-called reverse discrimination cases prove that an employer has a history of discriminating against a majority group, what are known as “background circumstances” that place a higher bar for those from a majority group trying to argue a discrimination case.
When the case appeared in front of the US circuit court of appeals, the judges initially rejected Ames’s claims, saying that she failed to demonstrate such background circumstances, and needed to show evidence that those within a minority group had made the discriminatory decisions. Those who were in charge of hiring and demoting Ames were also straight.
In a surprising twist, even DEI darling Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson got this one right. She ruled that plaintiffs from majority groups, even straight white women, shouldn’t have to leap over higher legal hurdles than anyone else. The playing field, at least on paper, is supposed to be level. And with this 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court just sent a loud message: “reverse discrimination” cases are real, and the days of dismissing them with a shrug might finally be over. The Guardian piece goes on:
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is liberal-leaning, wrote for the court on Thursday morning: “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.”
In other words, the bar for discrimination against a historical majority group is not any higher than minority groups, which could make winning reverse discrimination cases in the future easier for future plaintiffs.
In an interview with the Washington Post earlier this year, Ames said that when she filed her discrimination claim, she did not know “that my burden was going to be harsher than somebody else’s burden to prove my case”.
“I want people to try and understand that we’re trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just for a white woman in Ohio.”
DEI was sold to the public as a way to uplift the marginalized, but it’s actually doing the exact opposite. It sets up underqualified individuals for failure, and it punishes and vilifies excellence. Meanwhile, truly qualified, capable candidates are sidelined, and the American people are left with a weaker, more divided country.
This 9-0 Supreme Court ruling sends a loud and clear message: the DEI house of cards is starting to collapse. First, it was academia. Now, it’s the workplace. The tide is definitely turning – and not a moment too soon.
Annual Ad-Free Subscription… Join the Fight and Support Revolver Now…
Check out the new merch! — Donate…
Sign up for our email list… Stay on the bleeding edge…
NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — BLUESKY
Join the Discussion