Latest news with #MarleanAmes
New York Post
18-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
The end is near for reverse discrimination — a blow to DEI
The leftists who oppose discrimination against minorities, but favor 'reverse discrimination' against other Americans to promote workplace 'equity,' are about to lose a legal leg to stand on. The Supreme Court seems poised, in deciding Ames v. Ohio in the next few weeks, to decapitate the legal viability of reverse discrimination against heterosexuals — and give a strong boost to racial reverse-discrimination claims as well. Marlean Ames alleged that she suffered employment discrimination as a heterosexual in an Ohio state agency that favored LGBTQ employees. Advertisement 4 Marlean Ames at the law office of Edward Gilbert, her lawyer, in Akron, Ohio, U.S., February 13, 2025. REUTERS DEI-infused bureaucracies often consider such policies an acceptable part of their 'social justice' agenda. Federal employment law as written, however, protects everyone equally. Advertisement The legal issue before SCOTUS was whether, as a member of the majority heterosexual group, Ames had an extra burden of proof in her discrimination claim that an LGBTQ person would not have to meet. Ames worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, overseeing the confinement and rehabilitation of juvenile felony offenders in the state. She applied for a promotion, but was turned down in favor of a gay person that Ames claims was not qualified for the job. 4 The legal issue before SCOTUS was whether, as a heterosexual, Ames had an extra burden of proof in her discrimination claim that an LGBTQ person would not have to meet. REUTERS She was then demoted and replaced by another gay person — who, Ames claimed, was also unqualified. Advertisement Ames sued in federal court, asserting her claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes employment discrimination illegal. But the federal district court threw her case out — because of a decades-old, judge-made legal exception known as the 'background circumstances' rule. That 1981 rule sets a higher bar for a 'majority group' plaintiff to make a prima facie, or plausible, case of employment discrimination. Advertisement Such a plaintiff must show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' And since Ames couldn't show that the Ohio Department of Youth Services had a history of discriminating against 'majority' parties, her case was tossed. The district court's decision was affirmed by the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Judge Raymond M. Kethledge noted the obvious irony: 'The 'background circumstances' rule . . . treats some 'individuals' worse than others — in other words, it discriminates — on the very grounds that the statute forbids.' The Supreme Court accepted the case for review, and the Equal Protection Project, where we both are attorneys, filed an amicus brief supporting Ames' position. 4 EPP alone, we noted, has filed several dozen cases 'which entailed discrimination against majority parties.' Helayne Seidman We argued that the 'background circumstances' rule was both wrong and outdated: 'While discrimination against majority citizens may have been an 'unusual' event in 1981, it no longer is. Rather, so-called 'reverse discrimination' is commonplace.' EPP alone, we noted, has filed several dozen cases 'which entailed discrimination against majority parties.' The oral argument held on Feb. 26 was a hot bench. Advertisement During the hearing Justice Samuel Alito seemed to allude to our brief: 'The rule that the Sixth Circuit applied was apparently based on an intuition about the way in which most employers behave,' he said. 'And maybe it was sound at the time [that precedent] was decided. Maybe, as some of the amici have argued, it's no longer sound today.' While it's risky to predict outcomes, it appeared that all nine Supreme Court justices, liberals and conservatives alike, agreed that Ames had gotten a raw deal in the lower courts — because reverse discrimination really is unlawful discrimination, full stop. Advertisement 4 Marlean Ames sits with Edward Gilbert, her lawyer, during a meeting in his law office in Akron, Ohio, U.S., February 13, 2025. REUTERS 'We're in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me,' Justice Neil Gorsuch commented, drawing laughter in the courtroom. If that is indeed their decision, Ames would get to litigate her case in the district court once again, without having to meet a higher burden of proof. Advertisement Such a ruling would also have huge implications for discrimination cases beyond anti-heterosexual discrimination: Majority-group employees in all categories, including whites and males, would have equal rights to get their day in court. That means racial reverse-discrimination claims would have a greater chance of success, encouraging plaintiffs' attorneys to take such cases — and putting woke employers on notice that reverse discrimination is unlawful and costly. It would deal a major, perhaps fatal, blow to the DEI agenda of discriminating to achieve 'equity' over equal opportunity. If the Supreme Court rules as expected, reverse discrimination will soon be just as illegal as regular discrimination is in this country. And that will be a great day for equality in America. William A. Jacobson is a clinical professor of law at Cornell University and founder of the Equal Protection Project, where James R. Nault is of counsel and a research fellow.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A new Supreme Court case could change how employment law is practiced—and how HR leaders do their jobs
Good morning! A new case in front of the Supreme Court could change the employment landscape for years to come, and the way that HR teams around the country do business. On Wednesday, the court heard arguments presented by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who claims she was discriminated against after her job at a juvenile corrections facility was given to a younger gay man. Ames, who is straight, says she was also previously passed over for a separate internal role, which was given to a woman who identifies as lesbian, but had significantly less experience. Traditionally, employment law has held that people from 'majority groups,' including men, white people, and people who identify as straight, have faced a higher bar to prove that they are the victims of discrimination, compared to people from traditionally marginalized groups. But the justices appeared receptive to arguments from Ames's lawyers this week, the Washington Post reported, and multiple legal experts tell Fortune that they expect them to make a unanimous decision in Ames's favor. Or as Raye Mitchell, an entertainment and employment law attorney puts it, 'in their view, discrimination is discrimination' no matter who brings the case. As a result, if the decision does go through, it will likely be easier for people who belong to majority groups to sue their employers for discrimination. 'It's going to become a lot easier for proponents who are anti-DEI to be able to prove their claims in court,' Chris Braham, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery's employment practice group, tells Fortune. It's unclear if a Supreme Court decision in favor of Ames will result in more litigation. Jason Solomon, director of the National Institute for Workers' Rights, a nonprofit think tank, says it's already unlawful to make decisions about hiring, promotion and other aspects of work based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics, although he adds that employers will likely be willing to settle these cases for higher dollar amounts in the future. Other lawyers, however, think there could be an uptick. 'I think that any issue that gets a topic of conversation in the political and cultural world, and Supreme Court cases make that happen, will eventually bring more litigation,' says Camille Olson, co-chair of the national complex Litigation practice group at law firm Seyfarth. Employers should already be treating employees fairly across the organization. But this case may spur bosses and HR leaders to double down on written documentation to justify why they've made a given workforce or employment decisions, especially when it comes to terminating employees. 'They're just going to have to play a little more by the rule book. Until now, companies could terminate a white male and not have to worry about a potential lawsuit,' says Braham. 'That's no longer the case.' Companies will also have to be careful to document how and why they're promoting someone internally. When posting a job, business leaders should make sure that the position is open to everyone, and make sure to document their thinking throughout the selection process. 'I think as HR professionals, we're going to have to rethink the way that we approach any type of employment decision that we make,' says Shannon Anders, the founder and CEO of GritHR Solutions, a human resources consulting and outsourcing firm. 'Any type of hiring, promotion practices, decisions to terminate any employment practice—we have to look to make sure it doesn't explicitly or implicitly favor one group over the other.' Brit This story was originally featured on
CBS News
27-02-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Supreme Court seems poised to rule for Ohio woman alleging "reverse discrimination"
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared poised to side with an Ohio woman in her bid to revive a lawsuit alleging "reverse discrimination" after she said she was denied a promotion and demoted because she is straight. The case, known as Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, centers on what a plaintiff alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show to make an initial case of employment discrimination. Marlean Ames, the woman who brought the case, argues that a "background circumstances" requirement adopted by some lower courts unfairly imposes a higher burden on her as a heterosexual woman. The standard requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to put forth more evidence than those in a minority group in order for their case to proceed. Ames seems likely to prevail in her effort to have her case restored, with most — if not all — of the justices appearing to agree with her argument that federal employment law does not require her to meet a higher bar just because she is a member of a majority group as a heterosexual woman. The Supreme Court could send the case back to the lower courts for additional proceedings. Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that regardless of whether Ames is gay or straight, "she would have the exact same burden" and be treated the same under Title VII. Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Xiao Wang, who argued on behalf of Ames, that they want the court to write an opinion that says "the rules are the same." The questions posed by the justices to Gaiser prompted acknowledgement that there is agreement among all parties — lawyers for Ames, the Justice Department and the Ohio Department of Youth Services, Ames' employer — that all plaintiffs should be treated the same, regardless of whether they are in a majority group or minority group. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is reviewing the case as President Trump has taken sweeping actions to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs and policies throughout the federal government and fired workers overseeing the initiatives. In the private sector, large companies like McDonald's, Ford and Walmart have walked back their DEI initiatives in recent months in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions. That landmark ruling prompted more lawsuits from conservative groups targeting diversity initiatives at corporations. Allegations of reverse discrimination Ames started working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, the state's juvenile corrections system, in 2004 as an executive secretary and became a program administrator in 2014. During her time in that role, she received positive performance reviews, according to court filings. Ames applied for a promotion to bureau chief of quality assurance and improvement in 2019, but didn't get the job. Her supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is gay, said Ames and two others who applied failed to lay out their vision for the role, according to court filings from Ames' legal team. The position remained unfilled for months and eventually was offered to a gay woman who had been with the department for less time than Ames, her lawyers said in court papers. The woman didn't interview or apply for the job, and was less qualified than Ames, according to the attorneys. After Ames was denied the promotion, she was removed from her position as program administrator and told she could either return to her job as executive secretary or be fired. Accepting the demotion, though, would mean a significant pay cut — from $47.22 an hour to $28.40, according to court filings. Ames told CBS News in an interview Wednesday that she discovered she was being demoted to secretary just a few days after she received her 30-year service pin. "They put a 25-year-old man with less than three years of service in our agency to do my job that I had successfully done for over five years," Ames said. Still, Ames chose to go back to her role as executive secretary and was replaced as program administrator by a gay man, her lawyers said. "It was humiliating going to work every day," Ames added of the experience of being demoted. Ames sued the Department of Youth Services and alleged violations of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex, which includes sexual orientation. Ames argued the department discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation. A federal district court ruled for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, finding that the department offered "legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons" for passing Ames over for the promotion. The court also concluded that she failed to satisfy the "background circumstances" requirement. Imposed by some courts, the standard requires a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group to show "background circumstances" that "support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority," or engages in reverse discrimination. Plaintiffs can make that showing by presenting evidence that a member of the relevant minority group — gay people, in Ames' case — made the employment decision at issue, or by presenting statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of a majority group. Ames asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to review the district court's decision. The appeals court also found that she failed to satisfy the "background circumstances" requirement and threw out her case. The three-judge panel first said that the decisions about Ames' positions were made by the department's director and assistant director, who are heterosexual. The 6th Circuit also found that Ames' only evidence of a pattern of discrimination was her own experience. The Supreme Court agreed in October to take up Ames' case. In filings, her lawyers argued that the "background circumstances" test infringes on the text of Title VII, Supreme Court precedent and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's own practices. During arguments before the high court, Wang said he and his client are asking for "equal justice under the law." But lawyers for the Ohio Department of Youth Services reiterated in a filing that the officials who made decisions about Ames' employment are straight and provided a nondiscriminatory reason for replacing her as program administrator: concerns about her vision for the department. None of the decision-makers knew Ames' sexual orientation when she was denied the promotion and demoted, Gaiser told the justices. Additionally, the state wrote in filings that the background circumstances rule is just another way of determining whether the circumstances surrounding an employment decision suggest that decision was because of a protected characteristic. Ohio officials said the background circumstances standard protects against "meritless" Title VII claims, which can "impose ruinous costs, especially on smaller businesses, that ultimately reduce employment, incent automation, and inflate prices for consumers — or consume Ohioans' tax dollars." Barrett questioned whether a decision in favor of Ames would "throw the door open" to more suits. Wang noted that only half the federal appeals courts apply the background circumstances rule. During the arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the circumstances surrounding the employment decisions about Ames, such as her years working at the Department of Youth Services and positive performance reviews, suggest "there's something suspicious" about her getting passed over for the promotion. That could give rise to an inference of discrimination, she said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, meanwhile, said that the argument pressed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services indicates that a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group has to put forth all of their evidence at an initial stage in the proceedings. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in December, the Biden administration argued the 6th Circuit was wrong to apply a heightened requirement that it said would foreclose some claims that would satisfy Title VII's standard for liability. The previous administration urged the Supreme Court to toss out the lower court's decision and send the case back for more proceedings. The Trump administration also urged the justices to toss out the 6th Circuit's ruling. Ashley Robertson, assistant to the solicitor general, told the court that Title VII "draws no distinction" based on whether an employee alleging discrimination is a member of a majority or minority group.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A straight white woman from Ohio is the focal point of a discrimination lawsuit that could reshape the legal landscape
The Supreme Court is poised to implement changes to Title VII of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act that requires white, straight, and male plaintiffs to factor in added steps that those in the minority don't. This comes after an Ohio Department of Youth Services employee Marlean Ames alleged discriminated after two LGBTQ+ employees obtained jobs she claimed they did not deserve. The Supreme Court could be in favor of altering discriminatory factors for straight, white, and male people, according to oral arguments in the claims of Ohio woman Marlean Ames who claims she endured prejudice at work after two LGBTQ+ employees were selected for positions over her. Ames, 60, a straight white woman, filed suit alleging discrimination in 2020 after she was allegedly given an ultimatum from an assistant director and a human resources official to forcibly accept a demotion from her job as an administrator with the Ohio Department of Youth Services. 'I am not going to discuss this with you,' the assistant director Julia Walburn allegedly told Ames, according to her lawsuit obtained by The Washington Post. 'I am not going to debate it. Just sign the paper and have a job, or do not sign the paper and do not have a job.' Her position was given to an LGBTQ+ man in his twenties, who Ames claims was underqualified. Additionally, Ames alleges she was unjustly denied a managerial role, which was given to an LGBTQ+ woman, who neither applied for nor interviewed for the job, according to Ames. Ames filed suit claiming discrimination in 2020, but lower courts ruled against her due to past cases that imposed more stringent standards on plaintiffs who are straight, male, and white. Ames' case before the Supreme Court is attempting to secure a change in Title VII's statute in discrimination suits for white, straight, and male demographics. Currently the law states that further evidence is necessary to successfully win a suit in comparison to minority demographics. Her challenge argues the 'background circumstances' requirement used in almost half of the nation's federal appeals circuit courts — including Ohio — is unfair. The majority plaintiff must prove that members of a minority background ultimately made the decision in an unfavorable ruling, or that statistical evidence alludes to a pattern in majority discrimination. The 'background circumstances' requirement is an added prerequisite for those in majority groups attempting to file for discrimination. 'Background circumstances' do not apply to those in minority demographics. 'We are in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me,' Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said in oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund rejected Ames's claims in a friend-of-the-court statement. The amicus brief stated that, due to the nature of inequality in the U.S., the differing standards for majority and minority groups are appropriate. While 'reverse discrimination' is relatively uncommon, African Americans and other minority groups have been marginalized and earmarked for bias. Additionally, these claims against Title VII have garnered bipartisan support. The Biden administration wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief that background circumstances are in violation of the Civil Rights Act and are therefore unequal. 'At the heart of this case, at bottom, all Ms. Ames is asking for is equal justice under the law,' Ames's lawyer Xiao Wang said in the oral arguments. 'At the heart of this case, at bottom, all Ms. Ames is asking for equal justice under the law.' Wang argued that 'because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion,' that Ames shouldn't be treated differently. At the root of this case is 'to protect the civil rights of all Americans,' Wang said. This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court hears arguments in 'straight discrimination' case
US Supreme Court justices indicated during a hearing Wednesday that they would side with a woman who alleged she was discriminated against at her job because she is heterosexual. Marlean Ames worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years. She claims she was passed over for a promotion, then demoted, because she is straight. The job she hoped to get and the one she held when demoted, were both given to gay colleagues, according to the lawsuit. Ohio state officials have denied the discrimination, and Ms Ames has so far been unsuccessful in court. In oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court - split 6-3 in favour of conservative judges - justices on both sides ideologically appeared sympathetic to Ms Ames's case. A 1964 US law forbids discrimination in the workplace, and in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that protection extends to sexual orientation, however lower courts have dismissed Mrs Ames's case. US court precedent covering some states, including Ohio, requires that members of majority groups - such as white people or heterosexuals - show a higher level of evidence when making discrimination claims. Plaintiffs in those cases – sometimes called "reverse discrimination" – are required to show additional "background circumstances" to prove their case, for instance evidence that LGBTQ people made decisions affecting the person discriminated against, or evidence showing a pattern of discrimination. According to the lawsuit, Ms Ames had positive performance evaluations, but in 2019 she and two other heterosexual employees were passed over for a promotion that was eventually given to a lesbian. She was later demoted, according to the lawsuit, and her job was given to a gay man. In addition to ruling that Ms Ames did not show a pattern of discrimination or "background circumstances", a lower court also previously found that managers at the youth services department had "legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons" for their decisions. During arguments on Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the court's conservative members, said: "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes." According to the transcript of the hearing, another conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, said that "it doesn't matter if she was gay or whether she was straight", the legal burden should be the same. And several of the court's liberal justices seemed to agree. Neil Gorsuch indicated that he thought allowing Ms Ames' lawsuit to proceed would be a "wise course". While talking about the facts of the case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said "something's suspicious" which "certainly can give rise to an inference of discrimination." Ohio officials were represented in court by the state Solicitor General T Elliot Gaiser, a former lawyer for Trump. Gaiser told the justices "everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally", but argued that the officials who made the job decisions did not know Ames' sexual orientation and thus could not have used it to discriminate against her. Lawyers for the state also argue that those making the employment decisions were heterosexual and had legitimate concerns about Ms Ames's vision for the youth services department. The Supreme Court could order lower courts to re-examine the case and allow the lawsuit to go ahead. US court says law protects gay workers
