US Supreme Court hears arguments in 'straight discrimination' case
US Supreme Court justices indicated during a hearing Wednesday that they would side with a woman who alleged she was discriminated against at her job because she is heterosexual.
Marlean Ames worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.
She claims she was passed over for a promotion, then demoted, because she is straight. The job she hoped to get and the one she held when demoted, were both given to gay colleagues, according to the lawsuit.
Ohio state officials have denied the discrimination, and Ms Ames has so far been unsuccessful in court.
In oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court - split 6-3 in favour of conservative judges - justices on both sides ideologically appeared sympathetic to Ms Ames's case.
A 1964 US law forbids discrimination in the workplace, and in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that protection extends to sexual orientation, however lower courts have dismissed Mrs Ames's case.
US court precedent covering some states, including Ohio, requires that members of majority groups - such as white people or heterosexuals - show a higher level of evidence when making discrimination claims.
Plaintiffs in those cases – sometimes called "reverse discrimination" – are required to show additional "background circumstances" to prove their case, for instance evidence that LGBTQ people made decisions affecting the person discriminated against, or evidence showing a pattern of discrimination.
According to the lawsuit, Ms Ames had positive performance evaluations, but in 2019 she and two other heterosexual employees were passed over for a promotion that was eventually given to a lesbian.
She was later demoted, according to the lawsuit, and her job was given to a gay man.
In addition to ruling that Ms Ames did not show a pattern of discrimination or "background circumstances", a lower court also previously found that managers at the youth services department had "legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons" for their decisions.
During arguments on Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the court's conservative members, said: "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes."
According to the transcript of the hearing, another conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, said that "it doesn't matter if she was gay or whether she was straight", the legal burden should be the same.
And several of the court's liberal justices seemed to agree. Neil Gorsuch indicated that he thought allowing Ms Ames' lawsuit to proceed would be a "wise course".
While talking about the facts of the case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said "something's suspicious" which "certainly can give rise to an inference of discrimination."
Ohio officials were represented in court by the state Solicitor General T Elliot Gaiser, a former lawyer for Trump.
Gaiser told the justices "everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally", but argued that the officials who made the job decisions did not know Ames' sexual orientation and thus could not have used it to discriminate against her.
Lawyers for the state also argue that those making the employment decisions were heterosexual and had legitimate concerns about Ms Ames's vision for the youth services department.
The Supreme Court could order lower courts to re-examine the case and allow the lawsuit to go ahead.
US court says law protects gay workers
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Suffers Embarrassing ‘Software Malfunction'
The U.S. Supreme Court has suffered an embarrassing technical screw-up after releasing the cases it would hear to attorneys and others in the legal community days ahead of schedule. It's the second such event in less than 12 months, following the accidental release of major case updates last year. Notifications about which cases would be granted or denied review next week were not supposed to be released until Monday, but an 'apparent software malfunction' saw the decisions released to lawyers on Friday afternoon. Mass confusion reigned as multiple attorneys compared the information in their inboxes to the court's online docket, which did not match up. As such, the court then made the unusual move of publicly releasing its orders list. 'Due to an apparent software malfunction, email notifications concerning action by the Court scheduled to be included on the order list set for release on Monday, June 9, at 9:30 a.m., were sent out this afternoon,' Supreme Court Public Information Officer Patricia McCabe said in a statement sent to reporters. 'As a result, the Court is issuing that order list now.' In June of last year, the court suffered a similar technical issue which saw a major abortion rights ruling briefly uploaded in error. This followed the serious leak of the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, which set off a major political firestorm. 'Accidents happen, and the court should be encouraged to provide more access to its rulings, like the email notification service that apparently caused today's glitch,' Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center has said. The Supreme Court has been contacted for comment.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Americans are questioning the value of a college degree. Trump is joining the debate.
President Donald Trump wants to tweak a traditionalfeature of the American dream: a college degree. Trump has continued to escalate his battle with Harvard University, threatening to cut off the Ivy League school from federal funding if it does not meet the administration's demands, which include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and cracking down on campus activism. The latest threat against Harvard, however, floated shifting funding to trade schools, an alternative path to a four-year college degree. "I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land," Trump wrote in a May 26 post on Truth Social. "What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!" The White House's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, added onto the president's comments in an interview with Fox News: "Apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers, we need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University. And that's what this administration's position is." Over the past few years, a growing number of Americans have started to question the value of a college degree due to high costs and a tough labor market, making trade schools and apprenticeships a favorable alternative. It marks a shift in the standard American dream, in which a four-year college degree had been viewed as a step to middle-class success. However, Jon Fansmith, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Business Insider that taking funding away from Harvard and other research institutions isn't the answer to boosting investment in trade schools. "The money that he is talking about withholding from Harvard is money that Congress provided to research agencies to perform advanced scientific and biomedical research," Fansmith said, adding that Harvard earned grant money because "they had the best researchers, the best laboratory facilities, the best understanding of how to advance that science," he continued. "You can't simply take that money and use it for another purpose." Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws will have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs." 'Two very separate stories' Higher education doesn't have the same draw that it once did. Some Gen Zers previously told BI that despite being taught that college was the primary path to success, they felt they could make a living by directly entering the workforce or going to trade school. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . That's why Trump's push to invest more in trade schools is important, Fansmith said — they help Americans get a stable career to support themselves and their families, and the federal government can help support those schools by asking Congress to approve more funding, not redirecting the funding unilaterally. "There are two stories here. One is this administration's attack on Harvard, and the other is, what is the role of trade schools, and is there a need for more support for trade schools? And as much as the president's trying to conflate the two, those are two very separate stories," Fansmith said. While Trump's big spending bill proposes some provisions to expand Pell grant eligibility to short-term programs, it does not detail a significant funding increase for trade schools. The Trump administration's rhetorical focus on trade schools isn't new. Before he won the 2024 election, Linda McMahon, now Trump's education secretary, wrote an opinion piece in The Hill advocating for the expansion of Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training programs. "Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees," she wrote. Trump also signed an executive order on April 23 to strengthen and expand workforce development and apprenticeships programs, which McMahon called a "significant step in ensuring every American can live their American Dream." Congress' role in rethinking education For years, Democratic lawmakers have been pushing for greater access to postsecondary education options, like free community college, and there has been bipartisan agreement on the need to boost apprenticeships and workforce programs without redirecting funding from higher education institutions. Amid the heightened focus on alternatives to a four-year college degree, the New York Federal Reserve said in a recent report that college still pays off; the median worker with a college degree earns about $80,000 a year, compared to $47,000 for a worker with just a high school diploma. Trump hasn't yet implemented his idea to redirect Harvard's federal funding to trade schools, and it's unclear how, or if, he will attempt to follow through. While he has already withheld billions of dollars from Harvard and other schools across the country for failing to meet his administration's political demands, the moves have been met with lawsuits, and Fansmith said it's likely more legal action would ensue should Trump attempt to move around funding without congressional approval. "We're talking about spending money that Congress said would go to support really critically needed research into things like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes, and other things that impact everyday Americans' lives, and give it to trade schools," Fansmith said. "Trade schools are great schools. They have lots of benefits. They deserve a lot of federal support, but not just to make a political point at the expense of Harvard." Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities — a group that represents for-profit colleges — said in a statement that Trump's focus on trade schools "is an investment in America's workforce." "The best way to support trade schools is to reduce the regulatory burden facing private career schools while increasing funding that allows students interested in the trades to choose the highest quality school," Altmire said.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
How a Times Reporter Eluded a Ban on the Word ‘Gay'
In the In Times Past column, David W. Dunlap explores New York Times history through artifacts housed in the Museum at The Times. The Advocate, a national L.G.B.T.Q. newsmagazine, took The New York Times to task in its issue of Dec. 9, 1986, for what the magazine regarded as this newspaper's indifference, if not hostility, to the gay community. Among the articles in The Advocate was 'The 'G' Word,' about The Times's refusal to adopt the word 'gay.' At the time, there was an explicit prohibition in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: 'gay. Do not use as a synonym for homosexual unless it appears in the formal, capitalized name of an organization or in quoted matter.' Gay men found this rule to be demeaning. I know, because I was one of them. As a closeted young reporter on The Times's Metro desk, however, I didn't stand a chance of persuading the publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (1926-2012), or the executive editor, A.M. Rosenthal (1922-2006), to overturn a ban they had put in place in 1976. So I waged guerrilla warfare instead. Whenever I wrote articles of particular concern to gay readers, I peppered the text with 'gay' as much as I could — in accordance with the stylebook rule. I also tried to limit use of the clinical, antiquated 'homosexual.' The point was not to be subversive, but to leave readers with the impression that my articles were written in idiomatic English. For instance, 42 years ago, I covered the transformation of a former New York City public school in Greenwich Village into what is now the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center. 'Homosexual' appeared only once in the article (apart from the headline, 'Sale of Site to Homosexuals Planned,' which I didn't write). But 'gay' appeared six times, in the names of organizations and in direct quotations. That 1986 Advocate issue is in the Museum at The Times, as is a copy of the old stylebook, opened to the 'gay' entry. The editor to whom the book belonged, Thomas Feyer, drew an 'X' through the entry in June 1987, when the rule was superseded by a memo from Allan M. Siegal (1940-2022), an assistant managing editor. 'Starting immediately,' Mr. Siegal wrote, 'we will accept the word gay as an adjective meaning homosexual, in references to social or cultural patterns and political issues.' That made my life easier, in many ways. Today, the stylebook says: 'gay (adj.) is preferred to homosexual in most contexts.'
