Employment's Reverse Discrimination Allegation Supported by Supreme Court in Favor of Heterosexual Woman from Ohio
Who's the Winner When Discrimination Laws Collide with Majority Status? Supreme Court Weighs In
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has taken a stand on behalf of an Ohio woman who claims she was passed over for a job due to her heterosexual orientation. dubbed as Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, this case presents a novel twist on employment discrimination law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned the unanimous opinion in favor of Marlean Ames, the plaintiff in this case.
Ames, a dedicated employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over 15 years, alleges that after receiving stellar performance reviews, she was denied a promotion and eventually demoted. Both instances saw the selection of less qualified gay candidates in her place. Her immediate supervisor was also gay.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a cornerstone of discrimination law, bans employers from making decisions based on sex or sexual orientation.
Extending Protection to the Unusual Majority
To bring a case to federal court, a plaintiff must first present a prima facie case, a legal term meaning there's enough evidence to support the claim.
Justice Jackson, writing for the court, addressed the issue of extreme scrutiny faced by majority group members bringing discrimination claims. "The question before us," she wrote, "is whether a plaintiff who is a member of the majority group must also demonstrate 'background circumstances' to support the suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majority."
According to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, plaintiffs from the majority had to prove "background circumstances" to suggest that the employer targeted their group, which the Supreme Court ruled as inconsistent with Title VII's text and case history. The Court decided to vacate the lower court's ruling and send it back for evaluation using the appropriate prima facie standard.
The impact of this decision means Ames can progress with her lawsuit, but success is not guaranteed. The ruling does not establish a prejudice against the employer; instead, it simply affirms that the legal standards for majority and minority plaintiffs should be equal in cases of employment discrimination.
This Supreme Court decision in the Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services case sets a precedent by extending protection to heterosexual individuals from employment discrimination, a novel twist on existing discrimination laws. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, author of the unanimous opinion, addressed the issue of extreme scrutiny faced by majority group members bringing discrimination claims. She ruled that plaintiffs from the majority should not be required to prove "background circumstances" to suggest employer targeting, a requirement deemed inconsistent with Title VII's text and case history by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision allows Ames to continue her lawsuit, emphasizing the equal legal standards for majority and minority plaintiffs in cases of employment discrimination.
