Latest news with #DepartmentOfYouthServices
Bloomberg
4 days ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
‘Reverse Discrimination' Ruling Is a Win for the Rule of Law
White individuals and straight people do not need to meet a higher burden of proof than members of minority groups to prevail in employment discrimination suits, the Supreme Court held Thursday. The immediate effect is to make so-called 'reverse discrimination' claims easier to bring. However, the decision also solidifies the existing legal framework for workplace discrimination — a framework that the court's ultra-conservative justices would like to upend. The result is not so much a win for conservatives or liberals as for legal stability. The case, Ames v. Ohio, arose when a straight White woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services applied for a management position, which instead went to a lesbian candidate. She was subsequently demoted, and her old job was given to a gay man. Ames sued, alleging these decisions amounted to employment discrimination.
South China Morning Post
5 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
US Supreme Court sides with woman who says she was demoted because she is straight
The US 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. Advertisement The justices, in a 9-0 ruling written by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, 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 favour of a gay woman and demoted, with a pay cut, in favour of a gay man. The dispute centred 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 US 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. Advertisement These courts include the Cincinnati-based 6th US 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'.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
US supreme court sides with heterosexual woman in ‘reverse discrimination' case
The US 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 the case of an Ohio woman who claimed that she did not get a promotion at a state agency 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. The case was sent back to lower courts. Ames argued that she was denied a promotion within the Ohio department of youth services because she is heterosexual. A lesbian was hired for the job instead, and Ames was eventually demoted to a lower position with lower pay, with a gay man taking her previous role. Some judges require that those in so-called reverse discrimination cases prove that an employer has a history of discriminating against a majority group. When the case appeared in front of the US circuit court of appeals, the judges initially rejected Ames' claims saying that she needed to show evidence that those within a minority group had made the discriminatory decisions. Those who were in charge of hiring and demoting Ames were also straight. But the supreme court was willing to put this reasoning to a test, with an appetite to rethink what 'reverse discrimination' actually means. The case comes amid broad-based attacks from the federal government under the Trump administration against diversity, equity and inclusion policies, or DEI, in American society which has become a powerful flashpoint among conservatives in recent years. After the supreme court ruled affirmative action in higher education unconstitutional in 2023, the conservative groups who advocated for the ruling set their sights on the workplace, vowing to end diversity measures set by employers. Over the last two years, dozens of cases that aim to dismantle DEI policies in the workplace have flooded courts around the country. At the start of his second term, Donald Trump banned DEI within the federal government, firing hundreds of employees who the administration deemed had DEI roles throughout various departments and agencies and cutting major programs that promoted diversity. The administration has also targeted universities for federal funding cuts for having DEI programs. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion More details soon …
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Supreme Court makes it easier to claim 'reverse discrimination' in employment, in a case from Ohio
WASHINGTON (AP) - A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn´t get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices´ decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years. 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. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. 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.
