Latest news with #DepartmentofYouthServices
New York Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
SCOTUS' unanimous discrimination call is a huge win for equality
The Supreme Court just scored a big win for equal protection under the law — slamming the lefty idea that discrimination only goes one way. The justices ruled unanimously that Ohio courts were wrong to throw out Marlean Ames' employment-discrimination case simply because she's not a minority. Ames alleged she'd been passed over for a promotion at Ohio's Department of Youth Services in favor of a less-qualified lesbian, then demoted and replaced with an also-unfit gay man. Advertisement Two lower courts spiked her case, claiming that a straight woman needed to offer more evidence of unfair treatment to show she had an 'unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Lefties and legacy media scoffed at Ames' case as a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit — as if 'discrimination' normally refers exclusively to unfair treatment of minorities. This all follows the left's 'oppressor vs oppressed' dichotomy, in which you're ever-more-inherently villainous if you're straight, white, male, able-bodied, rich, etc.: Anyone who ticks fewer of those boxes than you automatically can't discriminate against you because they have less 'systemic power.' Advertisement All nine Justices ripped that argument apart. Indeed, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that disparate-treatment law on 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' There is no 'reverse discrimination': only discrimination, no modifiers needed. Advertisement This is one more huge blow to the DEI industry, which is all about mandating that racist box-ticking mentality. Which surely why the usual suspects still called the ruling 'divisive' and/or President Trump's fault — as if a 9-0 decision somehow left any room for confusion. Kudos to the justices for upholding the plain and simple truth: The Civil Rights Act protects all people from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin — not just those who the left sees as victims. That's real equality.
Yahoo
5 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.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court makes 'reverse' discrimination suits easier
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (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 authored 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 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." Jackson, writing for the Supreme Court, said that both the language of Title VII and the court's precedents make clear that there can be no distinctions between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. "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," Jackson wrote. 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.
Reuters
5 days 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.
The Hill
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court unanimously revives straight woman's ‘reverse discrimination' lawsuit
The Supreme Court unanimously revived a straight woman's 'reverse discrimination' case against her former employer Thursday, lowering the legal hurdle for white and straight employees to bring such lawsuits. The 9-0 decision rejects that members of a majority group must show 'background circumstances' in addition to the normal requirements to prove a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. 'We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, former President Biden's sole appointee to the court, wrote for the court. Marlean Ames, who worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for two decades, sued under the landmark law over claims she was passed over for a promotion and demoted in favor of gay colleagues. Ames appealed to the Supreme Court after lower judges ruled in favor of Ohio, finding that Ames hadn't shown proven 'background circumstances' that indicate hers is the unusual case where an employer is discriminating against the majority. Ohio's Department of Youth Services hired Ames in 2004 and a decade later promoted her to become administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). In 2019, she interviewed for another job at the department but was not hired. Her gay supervisor suggested she retire, and days later, Ames was demoted with a significant pay cut. A 25-year-old gay man was then promoted to become PREA administrator. And months later, the department chose a gay woman for the role Ames unsuccessfully applied for. A three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed that Ames would've prevailed if she was a gay woman. But they ruled against her since she didn't meet the additional requirement as part of a minority group. Ames' appeal at the Supreme Court was supported by the Justice Department, the American First Legal Foundation and the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation, among others. The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and the National Association of Counties were among those that filed briefs backing Ohio.
