Opinion ID: 740798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reverse Gender Discrimination

Text: 18 Mr. Buchanan faces similar hurdles to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination. For a reverse discrimination claim, we modify the typical requirements of the prima facie case. Unlike a member of an ostensibly disfavored minority class, Mr. Buchanan must identify background circumstances that would justify applying to [him] (a majority plaintiff) the same presumption of discrimination afforded to a minority plaintiff. Reynolds v. School Dist. No. 1, 69 F.3d 1523, 1534 (10th Cir.1995). Thus, Mr. Buchanan can establish[ ] a prima facie case by showing that [Dayton] is one of the unusual employers who discriminate [sic] against the majority, in this case, male employees. Id. Mr. Buchanan has presented no evidence suggesting that Dayton is an employer who discriminates against an alleged majority of male employees. In fact, as the district court noted, Mr. Buchanan's argument that younger male employees were treated more favorably than he tends to undercut his reverse discrimination claim. Aplt's App. at 200 n. 2 (district court order of August 8, 1996) (emphasis in original). 19 Mr. Buchanan alleges that Linda See, age 53, see Aplt's App. at 197, received a scheduling position with a higher salary than had been offered to him. The record indicates that Mr. Buchanan did not apply for this position. In addition, the transcript from Mr. Buchanan's deposition testimony indicates that he had little knowledge of Ms. See's qualifications for the position or of her actual salary. See Aplt's App. pp. 148-49. 20 Mr. Buchanan also alleges that Karen Forshee, age 52, see Aplt's App. at 196, received preferential treatment because she displaced him, Aplt's Br. at 6, in an effort by Dayton to remove Ms. Forshee from the supervision of her husband. This contention is also unsupported by the record. In January 1995, after her position as senior scheduler raw materials was eliminated, Ms. Forshee assumed supervisory duties over receiving from Mr. Kinder and retained her duties over raw materials. The record indicates that Mr. Buchanan admitted that this position had different functions from his position as receiving supervisor. See Aplt's App. at 150. Moreover, Mr. Forshee assumed this position fourteen months after Mr. Buchanan went to the bargaining unit, which deflates Mr. Buchanan's displacement theory. See id. at 196. These allegations do not support a reverse discrimination claim against male employees; they do, however, controvert Mr. Buchanan's allegations that Dayton discriminates against older employees.