Supreme Court sides with woman claiming anti-straight job discrimination

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman who claimed she faced bias in the workplace after she was passed over for positions that went to gay colleagues. The decision will make it easier for members of majority groups to prove job-discrimination claims.

The justices unanimously struck down a standard used in nearly half the nation’s federal circuits that required people who are white, male or not gay to meet a higher bar to prove workplace bias in certain cases than do individuals whose minority communities have traditionally faced discrimination.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups.

“By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson wrote.

Marlean Ames argued it was unconstitutional to have different standards for different groups of people. She asked the Supreme Court to revive her discrimination claim against the agency overseeing youth corrections facilities in Ohio. Lower courts had ruled she hadn’t met the higher bar of proof.

“Little did I know at the time that I filed that my burden was going to be harsher than somebody else’s burden to prove my case,” Ames said in an interview earlier this year. “I want people to try and understand that we’re trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just for a white woman in Ohio.”

The case, known as Ames v. Ohio Youth Department, coincides with President Donald Trump’s efforts against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Trump has issued executive orders targeting DEI programs in the federal government and has ordered the Justice Department and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission to investigate programs in the private sector.

Ames’s case does not directly implicate DEI initiatives, but employment lawyers have said a ruling for her and the backlash against DEI could add pressure on companies to rethink programs aimed at protecting and elevating members of minority groups.

Corporations and employment lawyers were also closely watching Ames’s case because many think a ruling in her favor could result in more cases of workplace discrimination claims by members of majority groups.

Ames filed a job discrimination lawsuit in 2020 after she was removed from her position as an administrator for the Ohio Department of Youth Services and the role was given to a younger gay man. She was also passed over for another management role, which went to a woman whom Ames considered to be less qualified. Ames said the woman, who is a lesbian, had not initially expressed interest in the job.

Lower courts said members of majority groups must meet a standard of proof not required of minorities—known as “background circumstances”—to mount a circumstantial discrimination case. That means they must show their employer is the unusual one that discriminates against majority groups, which have not historically faced discrimination.

Ames’s attorney told the court that the extra requirement treats groups differently based on their background and therefore violates a portion of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlawed discrimination in the workplace based on sex, race, color, religion or national origin.

At oral argument, Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser seemed less interested in defending the higher “background circumstances” standard than arguing that Ames had simply not met the burden of proof in her case. He said Ames’s claim would have failed regardless of the standard because she was not able to marshal evidence of anti-straight bias.

Many job discrimination cases are circumstantial, because direct evidence of bias is often hard to come by.