Latest news with #Ames'
Black America Web
3 days ago
- Politics
- 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
USA Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The court said members of a majority group don't face an extra hurdle when alleging 'reverse discrimination' in the workplace. Show Caption Hide Caption 'People will fight back': Advocates react to Trump's 'war on DEI' Advocates of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, are criticizing U.S. President Donald Trump for shutting down government diversity programs by executive order. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed on June 5 that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay. The unanimous decision, which landed amid a national backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion programs, could trigger a wave of 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits. The justices rejected a lower court's ruling that Marlean Ames could not sue the Ohio Department of Youth Services because she'd failed to provide 'background circumstances' showing the department was 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' That's a test created in 1981 by a federal appeals court used by some, but not most, of the federal courts when assessing claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in 1981 that while white people are covered by the Civil Rights Act, it defied common sense 'to suggest that the promotion of a black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.' But the law itself, which bans discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, sex or national origin,' doesn't set different thresholds for members of minority and majority groups. Ames' lawyers told the justices her suit would not have been dismissed at this stage of the litigation had she been gay and the employees who got the jobs she wanted were straight. During the court's discussion of the case in February, Ohio's solicitor general did not defend the 'exact language' the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used when rejecting Ames' suit over insufficient 'background circumstances.' But T. Elliot Gaiser, the solicitor general, argued that Ames still failed to show enough evidence that her sexual orientation played any role in the hiring decisions she questioned. Ames twice lost jobs at the Ohio Department of Youth Services to other candidates she thought were less qualified, both of whom were gay. The department said she was passed over for a promotion because she lacked the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she happened to be straight. Officials said she was then demoted from her administrator position because she wouldn't bring a proactive approach to the department's increased emphasis on combatting sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system. The Supreme Court's decision in Amex v. Ohio Department of Youth Services doesn't settle Ames' discrimination claim but only revives it for additional court proceedings.
Yahoo
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court likely to side with Ohio woman's reverse discrimination claim
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The U.S. Supreme Court signaled last week it is likely to rule in favor of an Ohio woman who claims she was discriminated against at work because she is straight. 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.
Chicago Tribune
02-03-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: Don't let ‘reverse discrimination' reverse our national progress
Marlean Ames of Akron, Ohio, is not gay or a member of a racial minority. But, please, she points out, don't hold that against her, as she alleges her employers have, as she takes her 'reverse discrimination' case all the way to the Supreme Court. I wish her well. As an African American male, I strongly oppose unfair discrimination against any race, gender or sexual orientation, although I also know the charge can be very difficult to prove. Or, at least, it has been. Ames' case aims to change that and, considering how much the high court and official Washington have shifted to the right of late, she could hardly have chosen a more opportune time to try. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in her case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which has drawn a lot of attention since it could redefine how discrimination claims of all types are handled under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The core issue is whether so-called majority-group plaintiffs, legal language for white or heterosexual employees who allege discrimination, are so unusual that they must meet a higher standard of evidence than other plaintiffs in such cases. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund argued in a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that different standards were appropriate for majority and minority groups because minorities are historically the target of discrimination. Before Ames' suit went to trial, lower courts ruled against her, finding that she was unable to meet that standard. Ames' lawyers argue that the standard is unconstitutional. So does Donald Trump's administration and conservative legal groups. Joe Biden's administration also filed an amicus brief in support of Ames' position, as Jurist reported, 'with former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar agreeing that the background circumstances requirement is not supported by the text of Title VII.' On the other side were conservative groups like America First Legal, founded by prominent Trump aide Stephen Miller, which has campaigned nationwide against DEI programs as vigorously as his better-known campaign to tighten border restrictions. 'It is highly suspect in this age of hiring based on 'diversity, equity and inclusion,'' he has said, that minority groups face more discrimination on the job than majority groups do. That faint praise is a backhanded tribute to the success of DEI campaigns, even as many Americans still scratch their heads in confusion over what DEI really is. Having covered civil rights debates off and on for about a half-century, I am reminded of perhaps the most famous reverse discrimination case: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the 1978 landmark Supreme Court case that challenged the use of racial quotas in college admissions. The court ruled in favor of Bakke, striking down racial quotas while allowing race to be considered as one of many factors in admissions. When the high court ruled against specific racial quotas, many defenders of such policies mourned the beginning of the end for civil rights reforms. Instead, the effort to protect and defend civil rights continues despite periodic pushbacks, yet also with many refinements and improvements. As more people than ever seem to be quoting Martin Luther King Jr.'s immortal plea for 'all men' to 'not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,' I am reminded that he was not being descriptive about the present as much as hopeful for a better future. Our best way to get there as Americans is to help each other up, as we work together despite our many divisions, and not to waste too much energy trying to put each other down. In that spirit, I wish Marlean Ames well, and I hope the Supreme Court will be wise in its judgment. There's nothing simple about our racial, gender and other conflicts, but finding solutions together despite our petty differences has served us well in the past and it still can work again, if we can build faith in each other. Ames has taken on a complicated task, trying to work her way through our national tangle of history, group conflicts and tribal rivalries, looking for what most of us want: peace and justice. I only hope the Supreme Court comes up with a decision that, even if we don't love it, we can work with it.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court seems likely to rule for straight woman in reverse discrimination case
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared nearly unanimously aligned during oral arguments Wednesday that lower courts applied an unfair burden of proof to an Ohio woman who filed a reverse discrimination claim against a state employer. Having worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services for 21 years, Marlean Ames applied for a promotion in April 2019. After she was denied the promotion, her supervisor demoted her to an entry-level position, slashed her salary and threatened to terminate her. A lesbian woman secured the position for which Ames had applied, while a gay man was placed in her previous job. Ames is a straight woman. Ames then filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging discrimination because of her sex and sexual orientation. "I've worked 30-plus years to get the knowledge, skills and ability to be where I was." Ames said while testifying during one of her lower-court hearings. "I want to feel whole again." The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Ames' first sex discrimination claim and held that Ames had not fulfilled her burden of proof in arguing her second allegation about sexual orientation discrimination. At issue before the high court is whether the lower court held Ames to a higher burden of proof by requiring her to provide evidence, referred to as "background circumstances," that the defendant acted as an "unusual employer" in discriminating against the majority. Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser, representing the defense, argued that the "background circumstances" requirement is not a higher burden, but simply a different one compared to the standard for minority-group plaintiffs. Repeatedly stating the importance that all plaintiffs are held to the same standard, Gaiser's arguments teetered on siding with Ames. Laughing on the bench, Justice Neil Gorsuch exclaimed, "We're in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me! Counsel before us seem to be in total agreement." When commencing a Title VII lawsuit, most plaintiffs must present evidence that demonstrates unfair discrimination before the case goes to trial, a practice known as a prima facie requirement. This information typically includes proof of belonging to a minority, qualification for a certain job despite being denied for the position and continuous efforts from the employer to solicit applicants with similar qualifications as the plaintiff. Four out of the 13 appellate courts currently require a plaintiff from a majority group who claims discrimination to demonstrate "background circumstances" to bolster his or her case. Circuit judges dismissed Ames' cases, stating that she did not meet this requirement. Justice Elena Kagan seemed perplexed by the argument that the requirement did not hold Ames to a higher standard, referencing the lower court's opinion that suggested that if Ames were part of a minority group, the evidence she brought forth would have been enough to establish the legitimacy of her case. Gaiser said his counsel was "not defending the exact language" of the lower court's decision. Kagan said that Gaiser's somewhat wavering position on the lower court's ruling presented a "peculiar situation." "I don't exactly know what to make of this," she said. In response to the discrimination lawsuit, many legal organizations opposed to identity-based policies and programs filed briefs supporting of Ames. "It is strategically unwise to try to defend the standard just because courts, especially the Supreme Court, have been very, very explicit on the fact that race ought not matter in life," said William Trachman, an attorney from Mountain States Legal Foundation, which filed a brief on behalf of Ames. In the respondent's brief, the Ohio department said that if the court finds that majority-group plaintiffs are, in fact, held to a higher burden of proof under the "background circumstances" requirement, the court should hold all plaintiffs to a higher burden, rather than lower the standards. The general unanimous agreement between the justices who opposed the "background circumstances" requirement was not the only display of bipartisanship in the courtroom. Ames' attorney, Xiao Wang, emphasized that a prima facie case only requires a petition to bring forth some amount of evidence that can raise suspicion of discrimination and that more specific evidence may be brought once the case reaches the court. When Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Wang if such loose requirements would open the "floodgates" to Title VII lawsuits, Wang replied that the other circuits without the "background circumstances" requirement do not experience that issue. As the Trump administration axes diversity, equity and inclusion programs, Ames' appeal marks the first reverse discrimination case to go before the highest court since the president took office last month. Christopher Barnewolt, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a brief supporting Ames, said the question before the court incorrectly assumed that it is "unusual" for majority groups to face discrimination. "DEI and affirmative action policies are extremely strong evidence against this theory of majority group privilege," he said. "It's a very concrete example of people in our society being treated differently based on their background and being given benefits based on minority membership." The court is expected to reach its decision in the summer. "We're fairly optimistic that almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle here are more or less on the same page," Barnewolt said when predicting the court would rule in favor of Ames.
