U.S. Supreme Court likely to side with Ohio woman's reverse discrimination claim
Marlean Ames brought a claim against the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace after a lesbian woman was hired for a promotion Ames also applied for. Ames said she was then demoted and replaced by a gay man.
After the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled in favor of the department, she turned to the Supreme Court. Should the court decide in Ames' favor, the ruling could lower the bar for people belonging to majority groups to bring 'reverse discrimination' claims.
Ohio Intel plant construction in New Albany delayed by at least three years
Ames' lawyers are challenging legal precedent set by some lower courts that says someone from a 'majority group' has to meet a higher bar for a discrimination case to continue than someone from a minority group. However, during oral arguments on Feb. 26, several justices noted that precedent is not consistent with federal employment law.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued that the court should rule for Ames because 'it doesn't matter if she was gay or whether she was straight, she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII.' Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to agree, saying a ruling in Ames' favor on that point would be a 'wise course' to follow.
Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser, representing Ohio officials, defended the lower court's ruling in favor of the department, but said that 'everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally.' Still, Gaiser argued that Ames failed to show she had been discriminated against.
The state said Ames was demoted because new leadership in the department wanted to restructure to prioritize sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system. Ames led a program aimed at combating rape in prison but was seen as difficult to work with, according to the state's court papers. Officials involved in making those decisions are straight, the state said.
Ohio State cuts diversity offices, programming
If the Supreme Court rules in Ames' favor, it could affect workplace discrimination claims, like those for white people who claim they face racial discrimination as a result of diversity, equity and inclusion policies, which have been targeted recently by the Trump administration.
America First Legal, a conservative group, filed a brief in Ames' case citing other cases it has brought against various companies, including Starbucks and IBM, alleging race and sex discrimination.
'Where applied, the 'background circumstances' rule is an atextual, unconstitutional, and arbitrary obstacle to the vindication of employees' nondiscrimination rights,' the group's lawyers said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
10 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge rules MS in violation of Voting Rights Act, must redraw districts
U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock on Tuesday ruled that Mississippi's state Supreme Court districts dilute Black voting rights and that the state cannot use the same maps in future elections. In a sweeping 105-page ruling, Aycock, a President George W. Bush appointee, found that the three Supreme Court districts were drawn in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. Aycock asked the Legislature to redraw those districts in the future to give Black voters a fair shot at electing candidates of their choice. Out of the 100-plus justices who have served on the Mississippi Supreme Court, only four have been Black. Mississippi law establishes three distinct Supreme Court districts, commonly referred to as the Northern, Central and Southern districts. Voters elect three judges from each of these districts to make up the nine-member court. These districts have not been redrawn since 1987. The main district at issue in the case is the Central District, which comprises many parts of the majority-Black Delta and the majority-Black Jackson Metro area. Currently, two white justices, Kenny Griffis and Jenifer Branning, and one Black justice, Leslie King, represent the district. Last year, Branning, a white candidate who described herself as a 'constitutional conservative' and was backed by the Republican Party, defeated longtime Justice Jim Kitchens, a white man widely viewed as a candidate supported by Black voters. No Black person has ever been elected to the Mississippi Supreme Court without first obtaining an interim appointment from the governor, and no Black person from either of the two other districts has ever served on the state's high court. 'In short, the evidence illustrates that Black candidates who desire to run for the Mississippi Supreme Court face a grim likelihood of success,' Aycock wrote in her ruling. The lawsuit was filed in April 2022 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Mississippi, the Southern Poverty Law Center and private law firms on behalf of a group of Black Mississippians, including state Sen. Derrick Simmons of Greenville, and Ty Pinkins, a previous Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate. Aycock wrote that the parties will convene a status conference soon to discuss an appropriate deadline for the Legislature to address the districts. The Legislature earlier this year adjourned its regular session, and Gov. Tate Reeves is the only person with the power to call lawmakers into a special session. The state could appeal Aycock's ruling to the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
an hour ago
Oregon city at heart of Supreme Court homelessness ruling to ensure camping spaces under settlement
PORTLAND, Ore. -- The Oregon city at the heart of a major U.S. Supreme Court homelessness ruling has agreed to ensure camping spaces for at least 150 people as part of a settlement reached with a disability rights group that sued the city over its camping rules. Disability Rights Oregon, which sued Grants Pass in January, said Friday that it had reached a settlement agreement. The advocacy group accused the city of discriminating against people with disabilities and violating a state law requiring cities' camping regulations to be 'objectively reasonable.' 'This settlement represents a significant step forward in ensuring people with disabilities experiencing homelessness have places to rest, basic necessities like drinking water, and real opportunity to stabilize their lives,' Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of Disability Rights Oregon, said in a statement. Grants Pass Mayor Clint Scherf said in an email Tuesday that the city appreciates having reached an agreement and will "continue to work toward effective measures to benefit all members of our community.' A copy of the settlement agreement showed the city signed off on it earlier this month. Josephine County Circuit Court Judge Sarah McGlaughlin issued a preliminary injunction in March blocking the city from enforcing its camping rules unless it increased capacity at city-approved sites for camping and ensured they are physically accessible to people with disabilities. City ordinances prohibit sleeping or leaving personal property in a park overnight in most cases. Those found in violation can be fined up to $50. The city said Friday on Facebook that law enforcement 'will begin noticing the parks, and occupants will have 72 hours to remove their belongings.' The city's website shows three 'designated resting locations' in the downtown area, near City Hall and the police station, where people can stay for four days before having to relocate. The time limit can be enforced unless disability accommodations are necessary, the city said on Facebook. At resting sites, individuals are limited to spaces that are 8 feet by 8 feet (2.4 meters by 2.4 meters), with buffers of 3 feet (0.9 meters) between spaces, as outlined in city code. Under the settlement, Grants Pass must ensure that at least 150 camping spaces are available in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the next 12 months. Drinking water and hand washing stations must be available on-site. The city must also provide $60,000 in grant funding to a nonprofit for homeless services. Grants Pass, a small city of about 40,000 along the Rogue River in the mountains of southern Oregon, has struggled for years to address the homelessness crisis and become emblematic of the national debate over how to deal with it. Its parks in particular became a flashpoint, with many of them becoming the site of encampments blighted by drug use and litter. Last June, in a case brought by the city, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that communities can ban sleeping outside and fine people for doing so, even when there are not enough shelter beds. After the high court ruling, Grants Pass banned camping on all city property except locations designated by the City Council, which established sites for the town's hundreds of homeless people in a bid to move them from the parks. Upon taking office in January, the new mayor and new council members moved to close the larger of the two sites, which housed roughly 120 tents, according to Disability Rights Oregon's complaint, which said the sites were frequently crowded with poor conditions and inaccessible to people with disabilities because of loose gravel. After the lawsuit was filed, the city reopened a second, smaller site. McGlaughin's order in March said the city had to increase capacity to what it had been before the larger site was closed. Elsewhere, the California city of San Jose is similarly planning to open sanctioned camping sites in addition to the 'safe parking' it offers for people who live in vehicles such as RVs. The city of San Rafael, also in the San Francisco Bay Area, also has a sanctioned camping program.
