Reverse Discrimination

Reverse Discrimination is a form of unlawful discrimination where the individuals who are disadvantaged are otherwise considered part of a dominant or majority group. Like all other forms of discrimination, it is unlawful for individuals to be treated adversely based on their race, creed, color, religion, sex, or other protected category. In the employment context, reverse discrimination occurs when an employer favors someone in a minority group over someone in a non-minority group solely because of one employee’s race, creed, color, religion, sex or other protected category.

The simple fact is that the law is blind. The law does not care about the specific individual’s protected category, but only that the protected category itself is not used as a basis for employment decisions (e.g., hiring, firing, promotions, etc). The law requires that individuals must be neither disadvantaged nor receive an advantage based on their protected categories. Both instances constitute unlawful discrimination. In short, the best candidate should be one that is identified exclusively upon that individual’s qualifications alone – not that individual’s race, creed, color, religion, sex or other protected category. Simply, reverse discrimination is unlawful.

Today, there is an increasing desire by businesses to change the demographic of their workforce by promoting and hiring individuals based on their protected category. Making employment decisions based upon an individual’s protected category is unlawful. Employers cannot correct discrimination with discrimination. This is not a novel proposition. In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race.” Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No., 551 U.S. 701, 748 (2007). Thus, correcting discrimination within the workforce must be done exclusively by eliminating all bias within the employment processes. In all cases, however, the best candidate – based exclusively on such candidate’s merits – must be hired/promoted.

At Stevenson Marino LLP, we strive to rid the workplace of discrimination, regardless of who is disadvantaged. In fact, the great majority of our cases have historically been on behalf of those that are typically disadvantaged (i.e., minorities, females, disabled, etc.). Today, unlike any time in recent history, we are noticing an overt and express effort on behalf of employers to discriminate upon individuals based on their gender and/or color. The stated goal is to have a more diversified workforce. Unfortunately, many of these employers are going about it the wrong way by only hiring/promoting individuals based on their protected categories. This is unlawful.

A perfect example of reverse discrimination occurred with one of our clients, a Caucasian female. She worked for a major hospital system, was in excellent standing, and was abruptly terminated. She was told that “[o]nly white girls [are fired by the employer], and that [she will] need some black face paint” in order to keep her own job.

If the foregoing sounds wrong to you, you’re not alone. It is wrong; it is unlawful; and it’s shameful. The color of one’s skin must never be the basis of an employment decision.

This website is designed to provide information concerning reverse discrimination, including recent cases, news on reverse discrimination, as well as a mechanism for people to submit tips concerning reverse discrimination occurring in their workplace. Our objective is to keep all employers accountable and in compliance with the law. If you discriminate against your employees on any basis, including engage in reverse discrimination, Stevenson Marino LLP will be knocking on your door.

If you have questions concerning reverse discrimination, or believe reverse discrimination has happened to you or a family member, please contact us.

At Stevenson Marino LLP, we believe all forms of discrimination are wrong and must be irradicated. Regardless of your background, if you have been treated adversely as a result of your protected category, please let us know. In analyzing cases, we focus upon whether the best candidate was rewarded. If the best candidate was not rewarded solely on the basis of a protected category, we will fervently fight to see justice served.