...
By Hannah Parry
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Supreme Court has sided with a straight woman who claims she was discriminated against in the workplace after she was passed over for promotions that went to gay colleagues.
The justices unanimously rejected a lower court's ruling that Marlean Ames could not sue for discrimination because she could not prove that the Ohio Department of Youth Services was the "unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."
Why It Matters
The decision, which is expected to trigger a slew of "reverse discrimination" lawsuits, comes amid the Trump administration's attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
Read More
Will Donald Trump Get to Pick New Supreme Court Justices?6 min read
Lindsey Graham Gets Bad Polling News Ahead of Reelection Campaign4 min read
Republicans Get Worrying Update in Red State Senate Race5 min read
Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has banned DEI programs in the federal government and threatened to defund universities and certain agencies that continue to employ DEI.
While Ames' case does not explicitly mention DEI, the ruling may make some employers review policies aimed at protecting minority groups.
What To Know
Ames brought her discrimination claim against the Ohio Youth Department after she was passed over for promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and then demoted under a gay man.
...
However, as a straight, white employee, she was a member of a "majority" group and, therefore, had a greater burden to show "background circumstances" that proved that her employer had an "unusual" pattern of discriminating against the majority.
Ames' lawyers argued that her lawsuit would never have been dismissed if she had been gay and the employees who were promoted above her were straight.
The Supreme Court justices, on Thursday, unanimously agreed that the requirement to show "background circumstances" for majority group plaintiffs is inconsistent with federal law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote the opinion, said she agreed with Ames that it was unconstitutional to have different standards of proof for different groups of people.
What People Are Saying
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her opinion for the court, "Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."
Ames said in an interview with the Washington Post, "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. 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."
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court decision means that Ames' discrimination claim will now be sent back to the lower courts.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines