- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that could reshape how reverse discrimination claims are handled under federal law. The decision may equal the standards for minority and majority groups to file discrimination lawsuits.
- Marlean Ames alleges she was demoted and denied a promotion due to her straight sexual orientation, leading to a significant pay cut.
- The Biden administration had supported Ames’ case.
Full Story
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case next week that could redefine how so-called “reverse discrimination” claims are handled under federal law. Reverse discrimination refers to bias against majority groups, such as white people and heterosexuals.
Marlean Ames, a 60-year-old straight woman, alleges she was denied a promotion and demoted due to her sexual orientation while working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames sued her employer, but the case was dismissed by an appeals court.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
The panel of judges acknowledged that Ames had standing. However, the panel ruled she failed to show “background circumstances,” additional proof suggesting her employer discriminates against majority groups, to advance her claim.
The judges concluded Ames could not provide this evidence and dismissed the case.
Supreme Court to review appeals court decision
The Supreme Court will now hear arguments and decide whether the appellate court was wrong to require “background circumstances” from Ames, something not needed in discrimination claims from minority groups.
Ames contended this requirement imposes a higher burden on majority group members, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Details of Ames’ discrimination complaint
Ames began working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 and was promoted to Program Administrator in 2014. In 2019, after being passed over for a Bureau Chief role, she was demoted, leading to a significant pay cut from $47 an hour to $28 an hour.
According to Ames’ suit, the Bureau Chief position she sought was filled by a gay woman, and her former Program Administrator role was filled by a gay man.
Ames argued that both candidates were less qualified than she was for the positions.
Political and legal implications
Since President Donald Trump’s reelection, he and fellow Republicans have launched initiatives to end diversity, equity and inclusion hiring practices, labeling them discriminatory actions under the guise of inclusion.
Although Ames’ case might seem to align with these conservative efforts, the Biden administration filed a brief supporting Ames.
The federal government argued that Title VII applies equally to all employees without additional hurdles for majority group members.
The Ohio Department of Youth Services maintains that Ames failed to prove her sexual orientation influenced employment decisions, noting that the supervisor responsible for the promotion and demotion decisions was straight.
The Supreme Court will hear the case Wednesday, Feb. 26.
The ruling could make it easier for majority group members to bring reverse discrimination claims under Title VII, potentially expanding the scope of workplace bias lawsuits.
