This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
77
Oral argument calendar for February released
Post Flair (click to view more posts with a particular flair)
Image
Comments
[not loaded or deleted]
[not loaded or deleted]
Yes!! (I wanted to say that in my comment but it felt too long already)
Ames is a really weird vehicle for this issue bc the test probably shouldnât be implemented for sex discrimination cases, it feels like there should just be summary reversal
Author
Account Strength
100%
Account Age
5 years
Verified Email
Yes
Verified Flair
No
Total Karma
247,980
Link Karma
222,095
Comment Karma
24,430
Profile updated: 1 day ago
Subreddit
Post Details
We try to extract some basic information from the post title. This is not
always successful or accurate, please use your best judgement and compare
these values to the post title and body for confirmation.
- Posted
- 1 month ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- i.redd.it/tnk2rshj8h2e1....
100% agreed re: Bostock applying to heterosexual employees. Thatâs not really what Ames is about, though - Ames is about the evidence that a plaintiff must present in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII.
Normally (broad strokes) plaintiffs have to show (1) member of protected group, (2) qualified for job, (3) adverse employment action, (4) replaced by member of majority group.
Some courts require majority-group plaintiffs (e.g., a white employee alleging race discrimination) to bring extra evidence showing that their employer is the âunusual employerâ who discriminates against the majority. The cert question in Ames is whether majority-group plaintiffs are required to make this additional showing as part of their prima facie case.