Supreme Court sides with Ohio straight woman who alleged 'reverse discrimination'
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of an Ohio woman who wants to bring an employment discrimination claim against the state, alleging she was passed over for a job on the basis of her heterosexual orientation.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion.
The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, alleges her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, denied her a promotion and later demoted her, in both cases selecting gay candidates instead who were less qualified. Her supervisor at the time was also gay.
Ames had worked for the Department for more than 15 years and received sterling performance reviews.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
MORE: Woman takes 'reverse' discrimination case to Supreme Court over hiring of gay co-workers
In order to bring a case in federal court, plaintiffs must initially present a prima facie case -- Latin for "on the face of it" -- a legal term to indicate that there are sufficient facts to support a claim.
Justice Jackson, writing for the court, said that Ames had been unfairly held to a higher legal standard as a member of a majority group.
"The question in this case is whether, to satisfy that prima facie burden, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,'" Jackson wrote, quoting the decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand for application of the proper prima facie standard."
The ruling means Ames' lawsuit can move forward, but it does not necessarily mean she will succeed in her case against her former employer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
29 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines
The US Supreme Court turned away a fresh gun-rights appeal, refusing to question the District of Columbia's ban on large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices. The justices on Friday rejected arguments from four firearms owners who said the ban violates the gun-rights protections in the Constitution's Second Amendment.
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
DOGE just got a green light to access your Social Security data. Here's what that means
When people think of Social Security, they typically think of monthly benefits — for the roughly 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive them today. But efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency this year to access the Social Security Administration's data systems should conjure up thoughts of data on hundreds of millions of people. Why? Because the SSA's multiple data systems contain an extensive trove of personal information on most people living in the United States today — as well as those who have died. While a lower federal court had blocked DOGE's efforts to access such data — which it argued it needs in order to curtail waste, fraud and abuse — the Supreme Court lifted that order on Friday, allowing DOGE to access the data for now. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented. In her opinion, Jackson wrote, 'The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now — before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful,' she added. The personal data the Social Security Adminstration has on most Americans runs 'from cradle to grave,' said Kathleen Romig, who used to work at the SSA, first as a retirement policy analyst and more recently as a senior adviser in the Office of the Commissioner. DOGE was created unilaterally by President Donald Trump with the goal of 'modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity,' according to his executive order. To date, the group has caused chaos and intimidation at a number of federal agencies where it has sought to take control and shut down various types of spending. It is also the subject of various lawsuits questioning its legal right to access wholesale the personal data of Americans on highly restricted government IT systems and to fire groups of federal workers in the manner it has. Here's just a partial list of the data the SSA systems likely have about you: your name, Social Security number, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, your parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions if you apply for disability benefits, and use of Medicare after a certain age, which the SSA may periodically check to ascertain whether you're still alive. Other types of personal information also may be obtained or matched through the SSA's data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. Information on your assets and living arrangements also may be gathered if you apply for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is meant to help those with very limited income. As with the IRS data systems to which DOGE has also sought access, the SSA systems are old, complex, interconnected and run on programming language developed decades ago. If you make a change in one system, it could trip up another if you don't know what you're doing, said Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And, just as at the IRS, there are concerns that if DOGE team members get access to the SSA systems and seek to make changes directly or through an SSA employee, they could cause technical errors or base their decisions on incorrect understandings of the data. For example, multibillionaire CEO Elon Musk, a driving force at DOGE, had incorrectly claimed that SSA is making payments to millions of dead people. His claim appeared to be based on the so-called Numident list, which is a limited collection of personal data, Romig said. The list includes names, Social Security numbers, and a person's birth and death dates. But the Numident list does not reflect the death dates for 18.9 million people who were born in 1920 or earlier. That's a known problem, which the Social Security inspector general in a 2023 report already recommended the agency correct. That same report, however, also noted that 'almost none of the 18.9 million number holders currently receive SSA payments.' And making any decisions based on mistaken interpretations could create real-world problems for individuals. For example, Romig said, there are different types of Social Security numbers assigned — eg, for US citizens, for noncitizens with work authorization and for people on student visas who do not have work authorization. But a person's status can change over time. For example, someone on a student visa may eventually get work authorization. But it's up to the individual to update the SSA on their status. If they don't do so immediately or maybe not even for years, the lists on SSA systems may not be fully up to date. So it's easy to see how a new entity like DOGE, unfamiliar with the complexity of Social Security's processes, might make a quick decision affecting a particular group of people on a list that itself may not be current. Charles Blahous, a senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, has been a leading proponent of addressing Social Security's long-term funding shortfall. And he is all for rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. But, Blahous noted, 'best estimates of improper payments in Social Security are less than 1% of the program's outlays. I've been concerned that this particular conversation is fueling profound misimpressions about Social Security and the policy challenges surrounding it.' SSA's data systems are housed in locked rooms, and permission to view — never mind alter — information on them has always been highly restricted, Romig said, noting that she was fingerprinted and had to pass a background check before being allowed to view data for her research while at the agency — and it could only be data that had no personally identifiable information. Given the variety of personal data available, there are also a number of federal privacy and other laws limiting the use and dissemination of such information. Such laws are intended to prevent not only improper use or leaks of the data by individuals, but abuse of power by government, according to the Center on Democracy and Technology. DOGE's arrival at the SSA resulted in a number of seasoned employees leaving the agency, including Michelle King, a long-time career service executive who briefly served as acting commissioner from January 20 until February 16. She resigned after DOGE staffers attempted to access sensitive government records. In her place, SSA employee Lee Dudek was named acting director. Dudek put out a statement on SSA's 'Commitment to Agency Transparency and Protecting Benefits and Information' when he came on. In it, he noted that DOGE personnel: a) 'cannot make changes to agency systems, benefit payments, or other information'; b) 'only have read access' to data; c) 'do not have access to data related to a court ordered temporary restraining order, current or future'; and d) 'must follow the law and if they violate the law they will be referred to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution.' CNN's Alayna Treene and John Fritze contributed to this report.
San Francisco Chronicle
33 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court allows DOGE team to access Social Security systems with data on millions of Americans
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories Friday in cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency, including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at DOGE, the team once led by billionaire Elon Musk. The court's conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in the first Supreme Court appeals involving DOGE. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases. The DOGE victories come amid a messy breakup between the president and the world's richest man that started shortly after Musk's departure from the White House and has included threats to cut government contracts and a call for the president to be impeached. The future of DOGE's work isn't clear without Musk at the helm, but both men have previously said that it will continue its efforts. In one case, the high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that has restricted the team's access to the Social Security Administration under federal privacy laws. 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in an unsigned order. Conservative lower-court judges have said there's no evidence at this point of DOGE mishandling personal information. The agency holds sensitive data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, salary details and medical information. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court's action creates 'grave privacy risks' for millions of Americans by giving 'unfettered data access to DOGE regardless — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards, and all before we know for sure whether federal law countenances such access.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson's opinion and Justice Elena Kagan said she also would have ruled against the administration. The Trump administration says DOGE needs the access to carry out its mission of targeting waste in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The entrepreneur has described it as a ' Ponzi scheme ' and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a 'fishing expedition' based on 'little more than suspicion' of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE can't work effectively with those restrictions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The plaintiffs say it's a narrow order that's urgently needed to protect personal information. An appeals court previously refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there's no evidence that the team has done any 'targeted snooping' or exposed personal information. The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward. It's one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed over DOGE's work, which has included deep cuts at federal agencies and large-scale layoffs. The nation's court system has been ground zero for pushback to President Donald Trump's sweeping conservative agenda, with about 200 lawsuits filed challenging policies on everything from immigration to education to mass layoffs of federal workers. In the other DOGE order handed down Friday, the justices extended a pause on orders that would require the team to publicly disclose information about its operations, as part of a lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues that DOGE, which has been central to Trump's push to remake the government, is a federal agency and must be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Trump administration says DOGE is just a presidential advisory body aimed at government cost-cutting, which would make it exempt from requests for documents under FOIA. The justices did not decide that issue Friday, but the conservative majority held that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents be turned over to CREW.
