On December 15, 2016, The California Court of Appeal ruled to reverse a sexual orientation discrimination claim, allowing the case to now proceed to trial. In Hardy vs. Watts Healthcare Corp., Hardy alleged that her supervisor treated gay men, men in general and lesbians more favorably than heterosexual women, including her. It is not often that these claims arise, but they are becoming more prevalent. Hardy sued on Feb. 8, 2013, claiming her supervisor discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation and gender, and retaliated against her for opposing his discrimination. As such, isn’t this discrimination and not what is continually being referred to as reverse discrimination?
The court stated that “Taken together, the preferential treatment of males and homosexual individuals, along with the negative treatment of Hardy, might allow a fact finder to infer that Carmichael was motivated by discriminatory animus based on her sexual orientation or gender.” You can dive into the details of the case if you wish via the link provided. The point here is this, discrimination is discrimination.
Elizabeth Marvin, an attorney with Lewis Baach in Washington, D.C. stated it best when she said, “Complaints brought by employees belonging to what is traditionally the majority group should be taken as seriously as complaints brought by employees belonging to historically disadvantaged groups”.