US Supreme Court weighs 'reverse discrimination' case

Yahoo

26-02-2025

The US Supreme Court appeared likely to rule in favor on Wednesday of an Ohio woman who claims she was the victim of "reverse discrimination" because she was passed over twice for jobs for candidates who were gay.
Marlean Ames, 60, an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, is asking the court to revive a lawsuit she filed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and a number of major corporations are rolling back diversity and inclusion programs intended to combat systemic inequalities faced by minorities.
America First Legal Foundation, a group founded by Stephen Miller, who is now the White House deputy chief of staff, filed a brief with the court in support of Ames, a straight white woman.
Ames, a heterosexual woman, is arguing against lower court decisions that rejected her discrimination suit on the basis of precedent that members of majority groups must meet a higher bar for proving workplace bias than minorities.
In its ruling, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said Ames had not established "background circumstances" showing that the state agency is "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."
The requirement that she present "background circumstances" is unconstitutional and being unfairly applied only to members of majority groups bringing job discrimination cases, Ames said.
A majority of the justices on the Supreme Court, both conservatives and liberals, appeared sympathetic to the arguments made by Ames's lawyer, Xiao Wang.
"We're in radical agreement today," quipped Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the six conservatives on the bench.
- 'Equal justice under law' -
Addressing Wang, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, said: "So all you want for this case is a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it's because you're gay or because you're straight, is prohibited?"
"That's right, your honor," said Wang.
Ames was simply seeking "four words on the side of this building -- equal justice under law," he said.
"At bottom, all Ms Ames is asking for is equal justice under law, not more justice, but certainly not less, and certainly not less because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion," Wang added.
Elliot Gaiser, the solicitor general of Ohio, arguing on behalf of the midwestern state, rejected Ames's claims that she failed to get promotions because she was heterosexual.
"She could not establish that anybody was motivated by sexual orientation or even knew her sexual orientation," Gaiser said, or that they knew the sexual orientation of the people who obtained the jobs she was seeking.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberals on the nine-member court, said there was "something suspicious" about the hirings that can "give rise to an inference of discrimination."
"She was a 20-year employee, great reviews, and then all of a sudden, she's not hired, and someone's hired who's gay, doesn't have her level of college experience, and didn't even want the job," Sotomayor said.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its ruling in the case this summer.
cl/bfm