Latest news with #6thUSCircuitCourtofAppeals
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court rules for straight woman in job discrimination suit
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The standard for proving workplace discrimination under the law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, 'does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.' Advertisement The case was brought by Marlean A. Ames, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees parts of the state's juvenile corrections system. After a decade there, in 2014 she became the administrator of a program addressing prison rape. Five years later, she applied for a promotion. Her supervisors turned her down, saying she lacked vision and leadership skills. They eventually gave the position to a gay woman who had been at the department for a shorter time and, unlike Ames, lacked a college degree. Advertisement Not long after denying her the new position, her supervisors removed her from her existing job, telling her that they had concerns about her leadership and offering her a demotion that came with a substantial pay cut. She was replaced by a gay man with less seniority. Ames sued under a federal civil rights law that forbids employment discrimination based on, among other characteristics, sex. (The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination for purposes of the civil rights law.) The text of the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not draw distinctions based on whether the person claiming discrimination is a member of a majority group. But some courts have required plaintiffs from majority groups to prove an additional element if they lack direct evidence of discrimination: 'background circumstances that support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Lower courts ruled against Ames on those grounds. The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, said she could have satisfied the 'background circumstances' requirement by showing that decisions about her employment were made by 'a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people)' or with statistical evidence. But the appeals court said Ames had provided neither kind of proof. (In the trial court, she said the two supervisors who took negative employment actions against her were straight. On appeal, she said a gay supervisor had also played a role. The appeals court ruled that she had forfeited that argument by not making it sooner.) Advertisement Jackson wrote that the text of the civil rights law 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.' Indeed, she wrote, '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.' Conservative legal groups had championed Ames' case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039. The Biden administration also supported her argument, filing a brief supporting Ames. Jackson's opinion was tightly focused and nine pages long. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a 14-page concurring opinion in which he mused about, among other things, the difficulty of defining identity in American society. For instance, he wrote that it is not always easy to tell who is a member of the 'majority.' 'Women, for example, make up the majority in the United States as a whole, but not in some states and counties,' Thomas wrote. 'Similarly, women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.' He added, quoting from the 2023 ruling rejecting race-conscious admissions, that ''defining the majority' is even more difficult in the context of race, as racial categories tend to be 'overbroad' and 'imprecise in many ways.'' '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,' he continued. 'Black employees in Detroit, for example, make up a majority in their city, but not in Michigan or the United States at large.' Advertisement Religion poses similar problems, Thomas wrote. 'Americans have different views, for example, on whether Catholics are Christians,' he wrote. Thomas also objected to the premise of the appeals court's decision, which he said had ignored the pervasiveness of diversity programs in the workplace. 'The 'background circumstances' rule is nonsensical for an additional reason: It requires courts to assume that only an 'unusual employer' would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority,' he wrote. 'But,' he added, quoting from a supporting brief, 'a number of this nation's largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups. American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman in Ohio who filed a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit against her employer when her gay boss declined to promote her. The ruling will make it easier to file such suits in some parts of the country. Despite the politically divisive debate playing out over workplace diversity efforts – a fight that has been fueled by President Donald Trump – a unanimous coalition of conservative and liberal justices were in the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. 'Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,' Jackson wrote. Marlean Ames started working for Ohio's state government in 2004 and steadily rose through the ranks at the Department of Youth Services. She claims that in 2017, she started reporting to a gay boss and was passed over for a promotion that was offered to another gay woman. Ames is challenging a requirement applied in five appeals courts across the nation that 'majority' Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate 'background circumstances' in order to pursue their suit. A plaintiff might meet that requirement, for instance, by providing statistical evidence documenting a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority. Ames couldn't do that and so she lost in the lower courts. An employee who is a member of a minority group does not face that same initial hurdle. The requirement was rooted in the notion that it is unusual for an employer to discriminate against a member of a majority group. But neither federal anti-discrimination law nor Supreme Court precedent speak to creating one set of requirements for a majority employee to file a discrimination suit and a different set for a minority employee. During oral arguments in the case in late February, it was clear Ames had widespread support from the justices. Citing the 'background circumstances' requirement, the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Ohio. Federal appeals courts based in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, DC, applied that same standard, according to court records. At a moment when Trump has politicized workplace diversity efforts, both the court's conservative and liberal justices – as well as the attorneys arguing the case – appeared to agree that the 6th Circuit's analysis was wrong. The case landed on the Supreme Court's docket last fall, about a month before Trump was elected on a pledge to clamp down diversity and inclusion efforts in both the government and the private sector. The administration has taken a number of steps in that direction, including but attempting to cut funding to entities federal officials allege have supported DEI efforts. Many of those actions are being reviewed by courts. But Ames' case was more procedural. Notably, both the Trump and Biden administrations agreed that the 6th Circuit should reconsider its approach. CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report. This story has been updated with additional developments.
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination' in employment, in a case from Ohio
Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Advertisement Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames. The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing 'background circumstances' that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group. The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances.
Indian Express
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Trump makes first judicial nomination since returning to White House
US President Donald Trump announced late on Thursday his first judicial nomination since returning to the White House as he moved to appoint a lawyer serving under Tennessee's Republican attorney general to a seat on a federal appeals court. Trump said in a social media post that he is nominating Whitney Hermandorfer, who has clerked for three members of the US Supreme Court's conservative majority, to fill a vacancy on the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The seat became available for him to fill after Democratic President Joe Biden 's own nominee to the 6th Circuit failed to secure confirmation before he left office, following fierce opposition from Tennessee's two Republican senators. Trump made 234 judicial appointments during his first term in office, including three members of the US Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority.
Al Arabiya
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Trump makes first judicial nomination since returning to White House
US President Donald Trump announced late on Thursday his first judicial nomination since returning to the White House as he moved to appoint a lawyer serving under Tennessee's Republican attorney general to a seat on a federal appeals court. Trump said in a social media post that he is nominating Whitney Hermandorfer, who has clerked for three members of the US Supreme Court's conservative majority, to fill a vacancy on the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The seat became available for him to fill after Democratic President Joe Biden's own nominee to the 6th Circuit failed to secure confirmation before he left office, following fierce opposition from Tennessee's two Republican senators. Trump made 234 judicial appointments during his first term in office, including three members of the US Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority. Trump makes first judicial nomination since returning to White House US President Donald Trump announced late on Thursday his first judicial nomination since returning to the White House as he moved to appoint a lawyer serving under Tennessee's Republican attorney general to a seat on a federal appeals court. Trump said in a social media post that he is nominating Whitney Hermandorfer, who has clerked for three members of the US Supreme Court's conservative majority, to fill a vacancy on the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The seat became available for him to fill after Democratic President Joe Biden's own nominee to the 6th Circuit failed to secure confirmation before he left office, following fierce opposition from Tennessee's two Republican senators. Trump made 234 judicial appointments during his first term in office, including three members of the US Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority.
