Latest news with #OhioDepartmentofYouthServices
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in Ohio 'reverse discrimination' case
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. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court sides with straight woman claiming job discrimination in Ohio
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What CFOs should take away from the Ames v. Ohio decision
This story was originally published on To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily newsletter. In a landmark decision on June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services struck down the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, leveling the playing field for Title VII discrimination claims by now allowing all employees — regardless of their majority or minority status — to face the same evidentiary standard. For CFOs, this ruling signals heightened litigation risks and a need to consult with human resource leaders about hiring practices and potentially politically driven narratives being woven into corporate goals and messaging. In this collaboration, it's not just about a need for robust compliance strategies, but also an opportunity to assess the politicization of leadership and the organization's workforce. As companies face potential increases in lawsuits from majority-group employees who may have fallen victim to race, gender or sexual orientation based-discrimination in the name of a corporate DEI policy, financial leaders may have to reassess budgets for legal reserves, audit the contents of DEI programs in risk mitigation efforts and conduct workforce and pay equity audits to safeguard against costly claims and reputational damage. The case goes as follows: Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 by the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary and was later promoted to a program administrator. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was denied in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly after, she was demoted to her original secretarial role with a pay cut, and a gay man was hired as program administrator. In response, Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The issue at hand with Ames, who is a heterosexual white woman, was whether Title VII plaintiffs who are members of majority groups (e.g., heterosexuals and white people) must meet a heightened evidentiary standard, specifically the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas legal framework. After multiple appeals to decisions requiring Ames to show a higher level of evidentiary standard, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Ames and has now unanimously agreed to repeal this extra burden of proof from what previously was determined as a 'majority' status. Legal experts now say this opens the door to new risk for CFOs. 'In the Ames case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the legal standard for an employee to bring a discrimination lawsuit against their employer is the same, whether or not the employee is a member of a majority group or in the minority,' said Julie Levinson Werner, partner and vice chair of employment at Lowenstein Sandler. 'Previously, many courts around the country held that majority group plaintiffs, such as white men, had to also show 'background circumstances' that the employer was the unusual employer that discriminated against the majority,' Werner continued. 'Now, based upon the Court's decision, there is no longer the concept of a 'reverse discrimination' case, and any employee can sue their employer if they believe they have been subject to discrimination based upon their race, gender, ethnicity, etc.' Jasmine Ahmed, who has held multiple roles in global financial leadership and now provides fractional CFO services, said that, regardless of guidance, finance teams who are unintentionally diverse, in her experience, have always performed better. However, she says the politicization of the issue around DEI has drawn attention away from addressing challenges and into an attack on merit. Having a merit-based professional approach that comes with hard work and grit, she says, are core fundamentals of working and growing careers in corporate finance. 'If you ask any hiring manager, 'If you had complete autonomy, what would you want?' it doesn't matter if it's in finance or not — the answer is always the same,' Ahmed said. 'I've never met anyone who says, 'I want to hire someone underqualified.' What do we hear instead? 'I want the best person for the job' because when the best person does the job, life is easier.' Ahmed said this is a core component of finding talent in finance, and using merit as an indicator of talent shouldn't be a political issue. 'That basic idea isn't political,' she said, 'it's rooted in qualifications, skills, experience and mindset. Those are the components of merit.' Ahmed said finance leaders can take steps to proactively work against ideas of race or sexuality playing a role in growth at their organizations by making sure merit and skill sets are the groundwork for talent evaluation. 'If you look at my track record, go research who's been on my teams, you'll see a pattern,' Ahmed said. 'Not only were they high-performing, they were also diverse. But that wasn't by design. It came from a culture that promotes merit.' She said she rejected traditional hiring tactics she saw in her career as part of this strategy. 'What was different [with my teams] is I didn't allow nepotism,' she said. 'I made talent development a priority for everyone. It wasn't just about performance, it was about developing people and holding managers accountable for doing the same. When you do that, you naturally build a strong, diverse bench.' When asked if she's ever seen a DEI policy in her experience that wasn't about box checking or politics, Ahmed candidly explained that she has not. 'Unfortunately, no,' she said. 'Around the time of COVID and Black Lives Matter, DEI was the hot topic. What did we do? We started filling roles with either African Americans or white women, and at the time, I thought, hold on, DEI isn't about checking a box or meeting quotas.' She went on to explain how the narrative around DEI in the CFO community is now being tackled as a labor issue, a challenge that has been talked about for years. 'I go to conferences and hear the same thing: 'Talent is our big issue.' And I ask, 'What are you doing about it?' We've been talking about the problem for years, but we don't take action.' For those who are building careers around the industry of DEI policies and their incorporation into the workforce, the court's ruling creates a new challenge. However, for Sheryl Daija, CEO of BRIDGE, a DEI and action-oriented, member-driven 501c6 trade group for the global marketing industry, the ruling is a portrayal of 'civil rights protections as preferential treatment.' 'By eliminating the 'background circumstances' standard, the Court has made it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims without addressing the ongoing structural barriers that underrepresented communities continue to face,' said Daija. 'The concurrence by Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Neil] Gorsuch reveals the deeper motive: a sustained campaign to discredit DEI.' Daija went on to connect the language used by the justices in the concurring opinion to a political narrative against DEI policies. 'Their language [that is] citing briefs that call DEI an 'obsession' that causes 'overt discrimination' against majority groups signals hostility toward the very initiatives designed to correct long-standing inequities,' she said. Ahmed said organizations will likely follow one of two paths. 'One will ignore these issues, avoid the politics and take no real action, and they'll be blindsided,' she said. 'Their risk profile will go up, their teams will underperform, their innovation will stall.' She said the second group will take a more strategic approach and be much better off. 'They'll focus on solving the root problem, building strong, inclusive and high-performing talent for the future. If you solve for that, many of the risks and challenges will work themselves out over time.' Though she said this is seldom done in organizations she's familiar with, decisions like this — legal catalysts that come with a potential risk to the organizational growth projections — are sometimes what's needed to kick things into gear in a new direction. 'Culture is the hardest thing to change,' she said. 'I always tell clients, transformation is simple if you get the mindset right. With the right culture, people behave well even when no one's watching. You don't need as many rules, and everything becomes easier, but culture is also the one thing most executives don't invest in seriously.' Recommended Reading How CFOs can navigate DEI, its pullback and any legal repercussions in 2025
Hindustan Times
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
The L.A. Riots Hand Republicans a Political Edge
The Supreme Court's ruling last week in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services struck a welcome blow for equal treatment under the law. Even better, it was a unanimous decision written by a reliable liberal, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and praised in a concurring opinion written by a reliable conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas. This sort of principled clarity is useful, and it can be contrasted with the fuzzy logic our political class employs as protests against the Trump administration's immigration raids accelerate. Rioting is wrong, and it ought to be condemned. Yet President Trump and his Democratic opponents seem to believe that it depends on the circumstances. Mr. Trump had no trouble vilifying troublemakers who were out in force following George Floyd's murder. But he praised and ultimately pardoned virtually all of the Jan. 6 rioters who assaulted police officers, smashed windows and left feces in the Capitol's corridors. Mr. Trump is back to denouncing violent street protests again, but only a fool would believe that his law-and-order rhetoric is based on principle rather than political expediency. Democrats are no less guilty of selective outrage. They rightly condemned the attack on the Capitol, yet they have made excuses for everything from violence against Jews on college campuses to arson and looting at Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Given the left's calls to defund the police and abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, no one is too surprised. Democrats have long considered the welfare of violent offenders to be more important than public safety. Republicans typically have held themselves to a higher standard, and some consistency might help Mr. Trump meet it. Everyone knows that border security was the president's top issue when he campaigned for a second term, and polls show that voters trust Republicans far more than Democrats to deal with illegal immigration. Unlawful entries have dropped dramatically this year, but millions of unvetted migrants were allowed into the country under Mr. Trump's predecessor, and the current administration has vowed to track them down. The party out of power is learning again that elections have consequences. What Democrats apparently haven't learned is that street chaos—and those who defend it—plays to the president's political strengths. Protesters in Los Angeles who are torching vehicles and defacing public buildings with calls for violence aren't helping their cause. Nor are Democratic officials who are unwilling to acknowledge the role that their crime-friendly policies have played in bringing matters to a head. Gov. Gavin Newsom insisted that Mr. Trump's deployment of the National Guard was overkill. 'The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles—not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,' Mr. Newsom wrote on social media. True, current law-enforcement personnel were likely capable of restoring order, but that doesn't matter if police can't do their job because of dangerous sanctuary policies that shield illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes. Mr. Newsom said Washington 'manufactured' a crisis, but it would be more accurate to say that Mr. Trump is trying to resolve a crisis that was caused by progressive policies. Inevitably, Mr. Trump will overplay his hand. The question is whether Democrats will have the credibility with voters to take advantage when that happens. Mr. Trump said that his deportation efforts would focus on gang members, drug smugglers and violent criminals. The Journal reported this week, however, that the White House, concerned that the number of daily deportations was too low, recently directed immigration agents 'to target Home Depot, where day laborers typically gather for hire, or 7-Eleven convenience stores.' An immigration sweep on Friday near a Home Depot helped set off the weekend demonstrations in Los Angeles. Rejecting Mr. Trump's deportation agenda outright is a political loser for Democrats. If mandates exist in politics, he has one on illegal immigration. The smarter play for Mr. Trump's political detractors would be to support his efforts to remove criminal aliens and denounce violent protests everywhere and always. If Justices Jackson and Thomas can find common ground, perhaps anything is possible. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
New York Post
09-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Hooray! America is finally heading toward race and gender fairness
At long last, America is moving toward fairness in hiring, promotions, and college admissions. The latest good news: In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court said everyone deserves the same protection from discrimination, including straight white women and men. In the decades since Martin Luther King Jr. called on us to judge people by the 'content of their character,' this country has moved in the opposite direction. Racial preferences, Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs and quotas favoring women, LGBTQ+ and other groups replaced judging each individual. The average white guy or woman has been getting the shaft in corporate hiring, college admissions or even becoming a government supplier. But now that is changing. Recent events, including the Trump administration's bold disavowal of DEI and discriminatory practices in hiring and promotion, and the high court ruling in Ames v. Ohio on Thursday, suggest America is not doomed to be a hopelessly divided caste society where group identity trumps an individual's essence. We are starting to move in the right direction, where each individual can succeed on the merits. Marlean Ames' win on Thursday is another step forward. Ames, a 61-year-old white heterosexual woman, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she'd worked for 16 years. Despite getting favorable reviews and promotions, in 2020 she was turned down for a higher position that went to a lesbian, and then demoted, to be replaced by another gay man. She alleged discrimination based on her heterosexuality. Lower federal courts rejected Ames' claim , saying because she is part of a majority group — heterosexual white women — she had a higher burden of proof than a minority would have. But the justices ruled that having different standards for majority and minority groups violates Title VII, the portion of the landmark Civil Rights Act that outlawed workplace discrimination. Ames still has to prove her case in the lower courts, but she will be treated the same as any minority group member alleging discrimination, not facing what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson termed a 'heightened standard' of evidence. The Supremes' ruling will reverberate in federal courts across America. In the Sixth Circuit and four other circuits, that double standard prevailed until now. Kudos to the top court for rejecting that two-tiered system of justice. 'Reverse' discrimination is as bad as any other kind. Proving it shouldn't be harder. Amen. We are in a new era that began with the Supreme Court's 2023 rulings striking down reverse discrimination at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. After George Floyd's death in 2020, many companies launched ambitious efforts to diversify their workforces. Though well-intentioned, they caused resentment and violated the nation's bedrock principle of color-blind equality. The justices' ruling against Harvard sent a signal to the corporate world to change course. Credit also goes to politicians — including Donald J. Trump — consumers and even corporate shareholders who challenged DEI. Major companies began rolling back their DEI programs. Lowe's was one of the first. Now the company says it wants to be a 'unifier.' Citigroup reports it has dropped 'diversity, equity and inclusion' from the title of its talent management team. Home Depot, Google, Goldman Sachs and many others have publicly scrapped hiring goals based on race, ethnicity, sex or gender. It's a big change from the recent past, when a young white man graduating from college had to worry that internships and training programs at the big financial institutions and other corporate giants wouldn't consider him because of his race and gender. But it's good news for everyone, not just him. The six decades of concocted preferences since Martin Luther King's famous 'content of their character' speech and the harm these preferences caused should teach us that treating people differently based on the group they belong to is a mistake. Discrimination — no matter the group and however well-intentioned — inflicts new injustices. As Ames said, 'We're trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just a white woman in Ohio.' It's also reassuring that the unanimous opinion in Ames was crafted by Justice Jackson, the most liberal member of the court and herself often considered a DEI pick. It's another sign that America may be coming together on the need to end such distinctions altogether, whether invidious or virtuous in intent. Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and co-founder of the Committee to Save Our City.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Unanimous Supreme Court Affirms That There Is No 'Good' Discrimination
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that plaintiffs in "majority" groups cannot be forced to clear a higher bar to prove they were discriminated against than minority plaintiffs. The case originated from a heterosexual woman, Marlean Ames, who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which runs the state's juvenile correctional system, after she was passed over for a promotion and subsequently significantly demoted in favor of two gay candidates with less education and experience than herself. Two lower courts ruled against her, arguing that she had failed to clear a higher bar to prove discrimination set for plaintiffs from majority groups. Both courts found that she had not provided "background circumstances" showing that "the agency was the rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group," according to the Supreme Court Opinion. While the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Ames' discrimination claim, they did rule that the lower courts' "background circumstances" standard was unconstitutional and inconsistent with federal civil rights law, which protects all individuals equally, regardless of whether they belong to majority or minority groups. "As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the Court's opinion. "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." In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he joined Jackson's opinion "in full," adding that he also wanted to "highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks." Thomas argued that, when courts come up with "atextual requirements," it creates confusion and difficulty enforcing those rules. After a series of high-profile split decisions on key culture war issues, this unanimous decision is a strident affirmation that—regardless of the justices' differences on what constitutes racial discrimination—civil rights laws protect all people equally from discrimination, regardless of what demographic traits they have. The post Unanimous Supreme Court Affirms That There Is No 'Good' Discrimination appeared first on
