[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-161800-105":53,"doc-detail-161800-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","table-of-authorities-brief-of-amicus-curiae","TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Brief of Amicus Curiae","","This document contains a Table of Authorities and a structured legal brief in support of petitioners before the Supreme Court of the United States. It presents the American Alliance for Equal Rights’ position against a “background-circumstances” test under Title VII, arguing that the approach treats employees through racial classifications rather than the individual-equality standard. The brief contends that anti-white and anti-Asian discrimination is common and widespread, particularly through “diversity” programs across institutions, and urges reversal of the lower decision.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/table-of-authorities-brief-of-amicus-curiae/161800/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/table-of-authorities-brief-of-amicus-curiae/161800.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Emma Wilson","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-09-20","2026-08-30",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":76},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What legal issue does the brief address under Title VII?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The brief argues against applying a “background-circumstances test” that imposes different requirements based on race rather than a uniform colorblind standard for all Title VII plaintiffs.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why does the Alliance for Equal Rights say the “background-circumstances test” is improper?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"It contends the test relies on the assumption that anti-white and anti-Asian discrimination is “unusual,” and that assumption is contradicted by the widespread use of programs that allegedly discriminate based on skin color.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What does the brief claim about modern “diversity” programs?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"It argues that such programs have become a common source of discrimination against white and Asian Americans across many sectors, including law firms, corporations, nonprofits, governments, and even the military.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},161800,1788109866,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":9,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":140},3848291630094,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","No. 23-1039\nIn The\nSupreme Court of the United States\nMARLEAN A. AMES,\nPetitioner,\nv.\nOHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES,\nRespondent.\nOn Writ of Certiorari\nto the United States Court of Appeals\nfor the Sixth Circuit\nBRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE\namerican alliance for equal rights\nin support of petitioners\nTable of Contents\n\u000f\nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES\nINTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE\nThe American Alliance for Equal Rights is a nonprofit membership organization founded in 2021. The Alliance is dedicated to protecting every American—of every race—from the poison of racial classifications. Consistent with that focus, the Alliance represents individuals who have been injured by discriminatory programs both inside and outside of government. E.g., American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund, 103 F.4th 765 (11th Cir. 2024); American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Ivey, 2024 WL 1181451, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 19). The Alliance has a strong interest in this case because its members have been injured by—and will continue to be injured by—programs like the one here, which discriminate against some groups because they’re in the majority. Pet.Br.10-15.\n\u000f\nINTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY\nOF THE ARGUMENT\nWhen Congress passed Title VII, it “codif[ied] a categorical rule of ‘individual equality.’” SFFA v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181, 290 (2023) (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (emphasis added). Title VII implements that rule by banning “discriminat[ion] against any individual … because of such individual’s race.” 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). Because of that ban, employers can’t treat their employees as mere “components of a racial, religious, sexual, or national class.” City of Los Angeles, Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 708 (1978).\nBut the “background-circumstances test” treats employees in just that way. That test imposes different standards on different racial groups; specifically, it bars some races from maintaining a Title VII claim unless the “background circumstances” of their case show that their employer discriminates “against the majority.” Parker v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 652 F.2d 1012, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1981).\nSome courts have said that test applies only to white employees. Id. at 1016-17. Others have said it applies to whites and Asians. E.g., Telep v. Potter, 2005 WL 2454103, at *6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30). And still others have said it applies to anyone who isn’t “‘a member of an historically favored group,’” Notari v. Denver Water Dep’t, 971 F.2d 585, 589 (10th Cir. 1992)—an amorphous category that could conceivably include anyone from Asia, India, Spain, and the Caucasus. See Pet.Br.40 (discussing these “‘incoherent’ and ‘irrational’” categories). The result? For whites, Asians, and any other “‘historically favored group’” to bring a successful Title VII claim, Notari, 971 F.2d at 589, they must prove—over and above the traditional prima facie test—that their employer is the “unusual” defendant “‘who discriminates against the majority,’” Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 87 F.4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023) (per curiam).\nThat rule relies on one core assumption: that it’s “unusual” for an employer—or anyone, for that matter—to discriminate “‘against the majority.’” Id.; accord Parker, 652 F.2d at 1017. And that assumption is appropriate, courts have speculated, because discrimination against those races “‘is relatively uncommon.’” Mills v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 171 F.3d 450, 455 (7th Cir. 1999).\nBut that assumption is wrong. In recent years, “diversity” programs have become a common source of discrimination against white and Asian Americans. See Harvard, 600 U.S. at 258 (Thomas, J., concurring). Those programs have swept through seemingly every aspect of American society, including law firms, corporations, nonprofits, governments, and even the military. Despite their differences, all of those programs share a common theme: They discriminate against whites and Asians “solely on account of the color of their skin.” See Fearless Fund, 10","cbCaidnqpaQ52k68","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidnqpaQ52k68","docx",129794,22,"English","# Table of Contents\n# Table of Authorities\n# Interest of Amicus Curiae\n# Introduction and Summary of the Argument\n# Argument\n## Anti-white and anti-Asian discrimination is quite common in modern America\n## Law firms routinely discriminate against whites and Asians","[{\"question\":\"What legal issue does the brief address under Title VII?\",\"answer\":\"The brief argues against applying a “background-circumstances test” that imposes different requirements based on race rather than a uniform colorblind standard for all Title VII plaintiffs.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the Alliance for Equal Rights say the “background-circumstances test” is improper?\",\"answer\":\"It contends the test relies on the assumption that anti-white and anti-Asian discrimination is “unusual,” and that assumption is contradicted by the widespread use of programs that allegedly discriminate based on skin color.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the brief claim about modern “diversity” programs?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that such programs have become a common source of discrimination against white and Asian Americans across many sectors, including law firms, corporations, nonprofits, governments, and even the military.\"}]","TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Brief of Amicus Curiae | DOCX",8]