Latest news with #6thCircuit
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with woman who says she suffered job discrimination for being straight
The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a lawsuit by an Ohio woman who said her bosses discriminated against her for being straight. The court unanimously ruled that members of majority groups do not face a higher legal standard than minorities to prevail in so-called reverse discrimination lawsuits under Title VII, the federal civil rights law that bars employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex and other protected characteristics. The decision, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, comes as President Donald Trump has sought to deploy the nation's civil rights laws and agencies to combat what he sees as discrimination against white people and other majority groups. The ruling could make it easier for men and white people to successfully sue their employers for job discrimination. Lower courts had thrown out the lawsuit by Marlean Ames, who alleged that she was passed over for an Ohio state government job and then demoted from her existing post in favor of LGBTQ+ candidates. The lower courts said that members of majority groups suing for discrimination had to show 'background circumstances' suggesting that their bosses were among the 'rare' group of employers who were biased against the majority. Minorities suing for discrimination were not required to show analogous 'background circumstances' about their employers under the legal test that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had adopted. Jackson wrote that the 6th Circuit's requirement 'cannot be squared' with federal civil rights law or other judicial precedent. 'Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' the opinion states. The decision was an unsparing rebuke of the 'background circumstances' test and Ohio's legal arguments, stating at one point that the state's defense 'misses the mark by a mile.' Thursday's decision was unsurprising, given that the justices were highly skeptical of the state's position during oral arguments in February. Jackson's opinion did not explicitly discuss the implications for cases filed by white people. But Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote a concurring opinion in which he said that racial discrimination lawsuits brought by white people should not face a higher legal bar than those brought by minorities. Writing that he was 'pleased' with the court's ruling, he argued that the murkiness of racial classifications can make it difficult to determine whether someone is part of the majority. 'Even if courts could identify all the relevant racial groups and their boundaries, courts would still struggle to determine which racial groups make up a majority,' Thomas wrote, in an opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. The Supreme Court's decision Thursday vacated the appeals court's ruling and sent the case back for further consideration, meaning Ames will get a chance to prove her discrimination claims against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which runs the state's juvenile detention centers. A spokesperson for the Ohio attorney general's office, which defended the case, said the Supreme Court 'made clear that this case is not over,' and it still believes Ames was treated fairly. 'We look forward to fully pressing those arguments as the case moves forward because the Ohio Department of Youth Services did not engage in unlawful discrimination,' spokesperson Dominic Binkley said in a statement. The state argued previously that Ames was not chosen for the job she applied for and then demoted because she lacked experience relevant to both positions. In addition to uniting the Supreme Court, the case is also notable for being one in which both the Biden and Trump administrations, as well as conservative groups like America First Legal, all lined up behind the worker and against the 'background circumstances' standard. Some civil rights groups were concerned, however, that doing so could lead to an uptick of meritless 'reverse discrimination' cases.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Sides With Straight Woman on 'Reverse Discrimination'
The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to file lawsuits over 'reverse discrimination.' The nation's highest judiciary sided with an Ohio woman who claimed that she had been passed over for a job and was subsequently demoted because she was straight. Marlean Ames, a 20-year employee at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, claimed that the promotion and the job she previously held were both given to LGBTQ people. Ames had previously lost her case in trial court and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In siding with Ames, the court unanimously struck down a standard that had previously required individuals identifying as part of a majority group—such as being white, male, or heterosexual—to face a higher bar in proving discrimination. The ruling will affect cases in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The 6th Circuit was one of the courts that had tasked people like Ames with showing 'background circumstances' as proof, such as an internal pattern of discrimination against her at her organization. Ames did not provide any circumstances to the appeals court. In its opinion, the Supreme Court decided that the 6th Circuit's 'background circumstances' requirement 'cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court's precedents,' since the statute's 'disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.' Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal for American employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees on the basis of their 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.' 'The provision focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics,' the court wrote. 'Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' In its opinion, the nation's highest judiciary vacated the lower court's ruling, remanding the case to be re-deliberated under the new standard. In 2019, Ames had applied to be bureau chief of the Ohio agency. She was interviewed by two supervisors who did not hire her for it. Two more applicants for the role were also turned away. Eight months later, Ames claimed that one of the supervisors had hired a lesbian woman she knew personally to fill the role. Ames was later removed from her post as program administrator and given the option of being demoted to executive secretary or leave the agency altogether. She chose the demotion, and was replaced by a gay man. Ames claimed that she had been discriminated against as both of the hiring supervisors were lesbian women. This story has been updated.
Vox
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Vox
The Supreme Court's rare moment of unanimity against a DEI rule, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down a raft of mostly unanimous opinions, three of which reached a conservative outcome despite the fact that they were each written by Democratic justices. Sometimes, the law in a case is clear. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, authored by Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, was the first of these three cases. It involved a clearly illegal 'background circumstances' rule. This rule imposes a slightly higher burden on members of majority groups — such as white people, straight people, or Christians — who allege workplace discrimination compared to members of minority groups who bring similar claims. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. As Jackson writes in her opinion, this disparate treatment of majority-group plaintiffs is not allowed. She quotes the Supreme Court's opinion in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. (1976), which held that the federal law governing employment discrimination prohibits 'racial discrimination in private employment against whites on the same terms as racial discrimination against nonwhites.' The plaintiff in Ames alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation, rather than race. Marlean Ames is a straight woman who was passed over for a promotion that was ultimately filled by a lesbian candidate. She was later demoted and replaced in her previous role by a gay man. She claims that she was discriminated against because she is straight. Neither the lower courts that heard this case nor the Supreme Court, however, actually determined whether Ames is a victim of anti-straight discrimination. Instead, both the trial court and an appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, ruled against Ames because of an unusual rule applied by the 6th Circuit and a few other courts. Related The Supreme Court hears a challenge to a DEI rule that genuinely needs to go Under this rule, the plaintiff loses their case unless they can show, at a fairly early stage, 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' This obligation applies only to majority-group plaintiffs. This rule is not consistent with federal law. In addition to quoting the McDonald opinion, Jackson also quotes the law banning workplace discrimination, which makes it illegal 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment' due to factors including race, religion, sex, and more. This language treats all plaintiffs exactly the same, regardless of their majority or minority status. In Jackson's words, 'by establishing the same protections for every 'individual' — without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' Indeed, Ames is such a straightforward case that it is baffling that the 6th Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, which has existed in some courts since 1981, survived as long as it did. McDonald, after all, has been the law for nearly half a century, and it was decided before any lower court embraced the 'background circumstances' rule.
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Business
- Reuters
US Supreme Court revives straight woman's 'reverse' discrimination case
WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court made it easier on Thursday for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination, reviving an Ohio woman's lawsuit claiming she was illegally denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual. The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting a civil rights lawsuit by the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, against her employer, Ohio's Department of Youth Services. Ames said she had a gay supervisor when she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and demoted, with a pay cut, in favor of a gay man. The dispute centered on how plaintiffs like Ames must try to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex - including sexual orientation. Ames challenged a requirement used by some U.S. courts that plaintiffs from majority groups must provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to make an initial - or "prima facie" - claim of discrimination under a 1973 Supreme Court ruling that governs the multi-step process employed to resolve such cases. These courts include the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Ames. They require majority-group plaintiffs to show "background circumstances" indicating that a defendant accused of workplace bias is "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the court, said, "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard." Ames, 61, sued in 2020 seeking monetary damages. She argued that she was discriminated against in her department's 2019 employment decisions because she is heterosexual in violation of Title VII and that she was more qualified than the two gay people given the job positions instead of her. "I was straight and pushed aside for them," Ames told Reuters in February. The 6th Circuit said Ames could not satisfy the "background circumstances" requirement by showing that a gay person made the employment decisions in favor of gay people. The two people who had authority in those personnel decisions, the 6th Circuit noted, were straight. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's office in court papers defended the employment actions concerning Ames as part of a Department of Youth Services restructuring and said department leaders felt she lacked the vision and leadership skills needed for the newly created job for which she applied. On his first day back in office in January, Republican President Donald Trump ordered the dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion policies in federal agencies and encouraged private companies to follow suit. The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and other civil rights groups told the Supreme Court in a legal filing that Ames was asking the justices "to interpret Title VII in a way that ignores the realities of this country's persisting legacy of discrimination in evaluating disparate-treatment claims." These groups said the "background circumstances" inquiry lets courts account for the reality of historical and present-day discrimination "against certain minority groups like Black and/or LGBTQ people, and the virtual absence of widespread discrimination targeting certain majority groups like white people and straight people." The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on February 26.
E&E News
9 hours ago
- General
- E&E News
Environment issues abound as panel grills Trump judicial picks
Senate Democrats spent much of the first hearing on President Donald Trump's second-term judicial nominees Wednesday grilling his pick for an influential federal appeals court about whether presidents must follow court orders. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday took up five judicial nominations, spending the bulk of time on Whitney Hermandorfer to serve on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing comes as courts across the country have blocked — at least temporarily — some of Trump's efforts to reshape the federal government, prompting the president and his allies to lash out. Democrats pressed Hermandorfer on whether she would decide against the president. Advertisement 'My role would be to carry out my oath to the Constitution, first and foremost,' Hermandorfer told told Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), adding that she'd rule against the administration 'if that's what the law requires.'
