Professor Matt Green has published an article in Attorney at Law Magazine titled “White Man’s Burden: Ames and the War on DEI.” In the article, Professor Green discusses the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, which addressed the issue of “members of a majority group, say, white, heterosexual men, bear a heavier evidentiary burden to prove a claim of employment discrimination than members of a minority group.” In the Ames decision, Professor Green writes, “the U.S. Supreme Court held that burden is inconsistent with Title VII’s text and the Court’s precedent.”

Professor Green explains the relevant principles of Title VII at issue in the Ames decision, as well as analyzing the Court’s reversal of the Sixth Circuit. He also discusses the broader legal context, noting that the Ames decision may be used by opponents of DEI initiatives.

Professor Green then argues that “[d]espite the backlash, merely labeling a program as DEI does not mean it violates antidiscrimination laws,” in part because “DEI has no uniform meaning.”

Professor Green observes that “because Ames makes alleged reverse discrimination cases easier for plaintiffs to litigate, employers facing claims may opt to curtail or cancel DEI initiatives rather than risk prolonged, costly litigation even for claims that might ultimately fail on the merits.”