While this typically refers to making decisions against a member of a protected class, what happens if the employer makes a decision for a member of a protected class and in so doing rejects an equally or better qualified candidate who is not in the class (typically, a white male)? That white, male candidate could make a claim of 'reverse discrimination.'Īctually, 'reverse discrimination' is a poor choice of terminology, because what discrimination laws make unlawful is any sort of discrimination based upon a characteristic like sex or race. The basic premise of discrimination statutes is that an employer cannot make employment decisions on account of race, sex, or any other identified characteristic. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the term appears to be part of our vernacular. From a legal perspective, that firm finds it an unfortunate (that is, an unnecessary), because discrimination is discrimination, no matter which direction it goes in. law firm has an interesting post about reverse discrimination.

In this tepid economy, some workers in their 20s and 30s say their age is being unfairly held against them, and new legal developments mean more reverse age discrimination claims may soon be ending up in court. It's not just gray-haired employees complaining about discrimination anymore. Sometimes the term reverse discrimination is used when discrimination goes in the opposite direction of what is often first supposed.įor example, in the workplace, ageism is generally thought of as discriminating against older workers however:

Another word for reverse descrimination