Supreme Court Poised to Revive Job-Bias Suit by Straight Woman, Impacting Majority Groups’ Discrimination Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court is indicating readiness to reinstate a job-discrimination lawsuit filed by a heterosexual woman, which may potentially simplify the process for members of ‘majority groups’—such as White individuals and men—to present discrimination claims to a jury. During a session on Wednesday, justices from various ideological perspectives raised questions about lower court decisions that impose a stricter legal standard on majority workers compared to those historically discriminated against.

Justice Neil Gorsuch humorously referred to the session as featuring ‘radical agreement’ that a uniform legal criterion should apply to all discrimination claims, irrespective of the claimant’s characteristics. This case arises amidst a wider legal and political debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, with former President Donald Trump prioritizing the rollback of these programs should he return to the White House. The current case follows a precedent-setting decision by the court two years ago that banned racial considerations in university admissions.

The case centers on Marlean Ames, who contends she was denied a promotion and subsequently demoted at the Ohio Department of Youth Services due to her heterosexuality, with less qualified gay individuals receiving the positions instead. Ames filed her lawsuit under Title VII, the primary federal job-discrimination law. However, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati dismissed her suit, requiring her to demonstrate ‘background circumstances’ suggesting the employer is atypical in discriminating against majority members. Several other appeal courts enforce similar prerequisites for jury trials.

‘Peculiar Situation’

Even Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser, representing the department, did not support the additional requirement, although he argued for the dismissal of Ames’ case on other grounds. ‘Everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally,’ Gaiser stated, leaving Justice Elena Kagan puzzled by his stance. ‘It’s a little bit of a peculiar situation, isn’t it?’ she remarked, questioning the coherence of his position.

Ames has been employed at the department, responsible for juvenile corrections, since 2004. She was elevated to administrator of the department’s Prison Rape Elimination Act program in 2014 and later applied for a bureau chief position in 2019. Not only was she overlooked for the bureau chief role, but she was also demoted around the same time, with her hourly pay reduced from $47.22 to $28.40. Justice Sonia Sotomayor opined that Ames’s claims were sufficient to ‘give rise to an inference of discrimination’ and necessitate an employer’s explanation.

Ames’ attorney, Xiao Wang, described the case as posing only a ‘narrow question’ unlikely to trigger a surge of new lawsuits. He highlighted that more than half of the federal appeals courts already do not enforce the background-circumstances rule, noting, ‘We don’t see those circuits having some sort of flood of litigation.’

Ohio officials maintain that Ames was demoted as part of a comprehensive restructuring effort and that the new department director found her challenging to collaborate with. Gaiser also argued that Ames had not proven that department officials were aware of her sexual orientation. The Trump administration supports Ames, as did the Biden administration prior to the January 20 inauguration.

Ames’s backers in the case include the America First Legal Foundation, co-founded by Stephen Miller, currently Trump’s deputy chief of staff. The foundation criticized the background-circumstances rule as ‘highly suspect in this age of hiring based on ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’’ The case is Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 23-1039.