A straight white woman from Ohio is the focal point of a discrimination lawsuit that could reshape the legal landscape
The Supreme Court is poised to implement changes to Title VII of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act that requires white, straight, and male plaintiffs to factor in added steps that those in the minority don't. This comes after an Ohio Department of Youth Services employee Marlean Ames alleged discriminated after two LGBTQ+ employees obtained jobs she claimed they did not deserve.
The Supreme Court could be in favor of altering discriminatory factors for straight, white, and male people, according to oral arguments in the claims of Ohio woman Marlean Ames who claims she endured prejudice at work after two LGBTQ+ employees were selected for positions over her.
Ames, 60, a straight white woman, filed suit alleging discrimination in 2020 after she was allegedly given an ultimatum from an assistant director and a human resources official to forcibly accept a demotion from her job as an administrator with the Ohio Department of Youth Services.
'I am not going to discuss this with you,' the assistant director Julia Walburn allegedly told Ames, according to her lawsuit obtained by The Washington Post. 'I am not going to debate it. Just sign the paper and have a job, or do not sign the paper and do not have a job.'
Her position was given to an LGBTQ+ man in his twenties, who Ames claims was underqualified.
Additionally, Ames alleges she was unjustly denied a managerial role, which was given to an LGBTQ+ woman, who neither applied for nor interviewed for the job, according to Ames.
Ames filed suit claiming discrimination in 2020, but lower courts ruled against her due to past cases that imposed more stringent standards on plaintiffs who are straight, male, and white.
Ames' case before the Supreme Court is attempting to secure a change in Title VII's statute in discrimination suits for white, straight, and male demographics. Currently the law states that further evidence is necessary to successfully win a suit in comparison to minority demographics.
Her challenge argues the 'background circumstances' requirement used in almost half of the nation's federal appeals circuit courts — including Ohio — is unfair. The majority plaintiff must prove that members of a minority background ultimately made the decision in an unfavorable ruling, or that statistical evidence alludes to a pattern in majority discrimination.
The 'background circumstances' requirement is an added prerequisite for those in majority groups attempting to file for discrimination. 'Background circumstances' do not apply to those in minority demographics.
'We are in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me,' Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said in oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund rejected Ames's claims in a friend-of-the-court statement. The amicus brief stated that, due to the nature of inequality in the U.S., the differing standards for majority and minority groups are appropriate. While 'reverse discrimination' is relatively uncommon, African Americans and other minority groups have been marginalized and earmarked for bias.
Additionally, these claims against Title VII have garnered bipartisan support. The Biden administration wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief that background circumstances are in violation of the Civil Rights Act and are therefore unequal.
'At the heart of this case, at bottom, all Ms. Ames is asking for is equal justice under the law,' Ames's lawyer Xiao Wang said in the oral arguments. 'At the heart of this case, at bottom, all Ms. Ames is asking for equal justice under the law.'
Wang argued that 'because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion,' that Ames shouldn't be treated differently.
At the root of this case is 'to protect the civil rights of all Americans,' Wang said.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Brooklyn Center attorney suspended by Minnesota Supreme Court
The Minnesota Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended attorney Susan Shogren Smith, who authorities say filed legal challenges in the November 2020 election without permission of the plaintiffs. The suspension from practicing law came Thursday, on the heels of a petition for disciplinary action against Shogren Smith filed by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility saying that she has conducted professional misconduct. The Brooklyn Center attorney was given a $10,000 sanction in 2021 after a judge found she 'bamboozled' voters into signing on as plaintiffs without their knowledge or permission to file legal challenges against the election of five congressional Democrats. Calls to Shogren Smith on Friday were not returned. The petition for disciplinary action noted that a three-judge panel had determined she had committed a 'fraud on the court' and gave her an additional $15,000 sanction. The petition claims that Shogren Smith has failed to pay the $25,000, according to court documents. 'Respondent's misconduct is serious,' the state Supreme Court document said, 'and involved not just lack of competence and failure to communicate with clients, but dishonesty to the courts and disregard for the discipline process.' The court documents said her actions were 'not a brief lapse of judgement' but something that occurred for several years. Shogren Smith is a member of the MN Election Integrity Team, a conservative group that sought to prevent the state from certifying its election results while President Donald Trump and his allies promoted unfounded claims of election fraud. On Dec. 1, 2020, she filed five complaints in Ramsey County District Court, naming as defendants Secretary of State Steve Simon and the Democratic candidates who won their Congressional races. Those legal challenges were filed in the names of 14 separate voters, at least four of whom had no idea they were participating. 'Susan Shogren Smith … perpetrated a fraud against this court and, more importantly, perpetrated a fraud against these plaintiffs,' Ramsey County Chief District Judge Leonardo Castro said at the time the first sanction was imposed. In February of 2021, Republican activist Corinne Braun discovered her name was connected to one of the cases. 'To my horror, I saw that I had sued Steve Simon and Ilhan Omar. It was a surreal moment for me,' she said, likening the discovery to finding her car had been broken into. Braun testified she had received an anonymous email asking to add her name to a list of disgruntled voters. She filled out the form and signed her name and then forwarded the email to about 5,000 people on her mailing list. As Shogren Smith explained in court, what Braun had signed was an affidavit that agreed she 'will be joining with other voters across Minnesota to contest Minnesota election results.' Braun, though, said she didn't understand the implications. Shogren Smith acknowledged she never spoke with the plaintiffs or informed them of the outcome of the case, even when Braun and two other unwitting plaintiffs were ordered to pay $3,873 to the defendants at the conclusion of the case. Shogren Smith said at the time, she believed someone else with the MN Election Integrity Team was having those conversations with plaintiffs. 'I absolutely believed that those conversations were happening with these plaintiffs,' she said. U.S. Customs Border Protection officer charged with possessing child porn Man once convicted in Minnesota of supporting al-Qaida is now charged in Canada for alleged threats Jury finds Milwaukee man guilty of killing and dismembering 19-year-old woman 'We feel relief': Derrick Thompson found guilty in Minneapolis crash that killed five young women Man charged with hate crime in Boulder attack on 'Zionist people' appears in federal court
Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit
Source: The Washington Post / Getty In a unanimous Supreme Court decision that's already sending ripples through workplace law and DEI discourse, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who claimed she was discriminated against for her sexual orientation after being passed over for promotion in favor of gay colleagues. According to reports, the high court rejected a previously accepted legal standard that required members of majority groups to meet a higher burden of proof when alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, made it clear that equal protection under employment discrimination law does not shift depending on whether the plaintiff is part of a historically marginalized group or not. 'Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs,' Jackson wrote. And with that decision, what many had considered a quietly accepted court norm was struck down. The decision comes amid growing backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide, with critics arguing such initiatives increasingly favor the historically excluded to the point of excluding everyone else. Ames' legal victory is likely to fuel further debate over whether we're entering a new phase of 'reverse discrimination' litigation—where being white, straight, or male can now be leveraged in civil rights courtrooms as the basis of systemic bias. But the facts of Ames' case, while legally persuasive to the Court, remain emotionally murky. According to the lawsuit, Ames had been with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, eventually rising to lead a program aimed at combating prison rape. In 2019, she reportedly applied for a promotion and was passed over for a lesbian colleague who allegedly lacked a college degree and had less tenure. Not long after, Ames was demoted, and her former position was filled by a gay man. Her complaint: she lost both opportunities because she was straight. The employer's rebuttal: she lacked vision, leadership, and—more subtly—the emotional intelligence to lead. One might read between those HR lines and detect the scent of a corporate 'Karen.' Source: The Washington Post / Getty Despite Ames' insistence that her sexual orientation was the problem, court filings from the state describe her office performance as the real issue, revealing that she was more of a poor team player than a persecuted worker. Officials reportedly described her as 'difficult to work with' and pointed out that the supervisors who made promotion decisions were straight, challenging the idea of an anti-hetero bias at the institutional level. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost defended the department's actions in court, saying Ames' rejection and eventual demotion were part of an internal restructuring process, with department leaders saying they felt she was difficult to work with, and lacked the vision and leadership needed for the position she sought. Still, the Court's ruling wasn't about whether Ames was discriminated against—it was about her right to argue that she was without being subjected to an unfair legal burden simply because she's straight. For that reason, this case now returns to the lower courts for another round and potentially a full trial. Legal scholars note that this ruling could open the floodgates to more lawsuits from majority-group plaintiffs who feel shut out by race- or orientation-conscious hiring and promotion practices. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, cited an amicus brief from the Trump-aligned group America First Legal, which has recently taken aim at major corporations like Starbucks and IBM for so-called reverse discrimination. But there's a deeper cultural layer here that can't be ignored. Was Ames truly the victim of anti-straight bias, or was she an underwhelming candidate looking for a convenient legal hook in the form of her colleagues' LGBTQ+ status? In an era where 'DEI fatigue' is a real thing in boardrooms and breakrooms alike, the line between legitimate grievance and performative fragility is increasingly blurred. Still, the Supreme Court's message is clear: Discrimination law is about equality of process, not identity advantage. No group, majority or minority, gets a shortcut or a steeper climb to their day in court. So while Ames may still lose her case, she'll now do so with the same legal footing afforded to any other claimant, and for some, that's progress. For others, it's the beginning of a new kind of fear. But let's be clear: whether Ames' tears are of mayo or merit, this ruling is a turning point and in today's polarized professional climate, it's only the beginning of a much larger reckoning over who gets to claim 'discrimination'—and who gets believed. SEE ALSO: California Teen Sprinter Disqualified For Celebrating State Title Win Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk: Feud Cools After Explosive Clash SEE ALSO Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
