Latest news with #OhioDepartmentofYouthServices
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.
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.
Fox News
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Straight woman's job discrimination claim likely to prevail with SCOTUS rebuke of lower court: expert
The Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of a straight woman's discrimination claim in a case that could overturn a line of precedent that has made "the Civil Rights Act apply unequally," according to a legal scholar familiar with civil rights litigation. Petitioner Marlean Ames claims that she was demoted and passed over for a position in the Ohio youth corrections system in favor of two less-qualified gay employees who had neither applied for nor interviewed for the roles. At issue in her case is a higher burden of proof some lower courts have required for those considered to be in "majority groups" – in this case heterosexuals – to prove discrimination occurred under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. During Wednesday's oral arguments, the justices – and the lawyers on both sides of the dispute – all agreed that the appeals court erred in Ames' case, which required her to provide additional "background circumstances" to "support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Wednesday all the court really needs to do is issue "a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it's because you're gay or because you're straight, is prohibited, and the rules are the same." At one point during the arguments, Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser – arguing on behalf of the Ohio Department of Youth Services – perplexed liberal Justice Elena Kagan when he agreed that "the idea that you hold people to different standards because of their protected characteristics is wrong." "I mean, it's a little bit of a peculiar situation, isn't it, because this is what the court said," Kagan said. "And you're up here, and I don't know exactly what to make of this." Gaiser said he agreed with Ames "on that major premise point," but "we don't think Ms. Ames proved enough evidence to showcase a discrimination claim." "I think we had six depositions under oath, if you can't show any evidence that the employer was motivated by a protected characteristic when they took the adverse action, and certainly, if you can't show an adverse action at all, that's not enough to create any burden of production for the employer," Gaiser said. "And that sample pattern approved the four elements that McDonnell Douglas lays out, courts have adapted that under this court's guidance." The governing precedent in question is McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, a 1973 case where the high court established a four-step process for handling discrimination cases based on indirect evidence. Gaiser told the justices that Ames has not met the criteria set by those tests, even as the appeals court's application of the precedent was wrong. The "higher burden of proof" at the center of the case, which several circuit courts choose to apply, "is not supported by the text of Title VII," GianCarlo Canaparo, senior legal expert at Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "There was, and to some extent still is, an ideological movement which says the text of the Civil Rights Act, not just Title VII, all of it applies to everybody equally, but really it's only meant to give special protection to certain groups, and its protection doesn't apply to other groups," Canaparo said. "And that sort of logic is what underpinned the rule in the Sixth Circuit and others, that says if you're a majority group, you're presumptively entitled to less protection, and so you have this disparate standard." Canaparo said that during oral arguments "pretty much everybody, except maybe Justice Jackson, said, 'Look, the text is what it is. It's really clear.'" He also said Ohio's goal in the case is to raise the standard for everyone, making it more difficult to file discrimination claims. Under the current McDonnell Douglas framework, plaintiffs only need to present minimal preliminary evidence to suggest discrimination, after which the employer must prove a legitimate reason for firing the employee, Canaparo said. "Now that sounds good in theory, but how it actually works out is that the evidentiary burden that a lot of plaintiffs have to put up in the first instance is so low that what functionally happens in a lot of cases is that the defendant, the employer, has to prove its own innocence," he said. Gaiser's proposal, according to Canaparo, is to raise the initial burden on plaintiffs so that they must present a stronger case before the employer is required to defend itself, while maintaining an equal standard for all. "I think Ames will win, but that means a couple things. Number one, it means that traditionally created doctrines that make the Civil Rights Act apply unequally are on the way out," he said. This approach is expected to have significant implications in a second Trump term, especially as the president issued executive actions weeding out discriminatory DEI policies, he added. "I think it'll have a pretty powerful effect in continuing to shape the country toward the colorblind understanding of the law," he said. Meanwhile, Andrea Lucas, acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, wrote in a post on X that the "neutral standard that SCOTUS likely will land on in Ames" already applies "and has for decades." "@USEEOC unanimously signed @TheJusticeDept's brief in Ames. Don't wait for SCOTUS's opinion—comply with Title VII now," she wrote. Lucas told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Thursday that "the EOC has never held that position" of requiring a heightened background circumstances test for a "majority" plaintiff or group. "The EOC position is that this background circumstances test conflicts with the McDonnell Douglas standard. It conflicts with Supreme Court precedent," Lucas said. "We already had policy and enforcement positions that we've taken for decades." Ames started working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 as an executive secretary, which oversees the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Since 2009, she was promoted several times, and by 2014, she was promoted to program administrator, according to the Supreme Court filing. In 2017, Ames began reporting to a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is openly gay. During her 2018 performance review, Trim rated Ames as meeting expectations in most areas and exceeding them in one. However, in 2019, after Ames applied for a bureau chief position and did not get it, she was removed from her program administrator role, the court filing states. The department's assistant director and HR head, both of whom are straight, offered her the choice to return to her previous job with a pay cut. Ames chose to remain with the department and was later promoted to a different program administrator position. The department then hired a gay woman for the bureau chief role Ames had wanted, and a gay man for the program administrator position she previously held. In a sign of apparent bipartisan agreement on the underlying controversy, Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general under the Biden administration, filed an amicus brief in December urging the Supreme Court to vacate the appeals court's ruling. The Supreme Court is expected to release its ruling by the end of June.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court appears likely to side with straight woman in `reverse discrimination' case
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed ready to rule − possibly unanimously − that members of a majority group do not face an extra hurdle when alleging 'reverse discrimination' in the workplace. 'We're in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me,' Justice Neil Gorsuch said. The case was being argued amid a raging battle in the country over diversity, equity and inclusion programs. But the justices steered clear of that larger debate and focused solely on the appeal of an Ohio civil servant, a heterosexual, who said she lost two jobs to gay co-workers she felt were less qualified. When Marlean Ames tried to sue the Ohio Department of Youth Services, lower courts said 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 that is 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 if she had been gay and the employees who got the jobs she wanted were not. 'At bottom, all Ms. Ames is asking for is equal justice under law,' Xiao Wang, one of her lawyers, told the court in referring to the phrase that appears above the main entrance to the Supreme Court. 'Not more justice, but certainly not less. And certainly not less because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion.' T. Elliot Gaiser, Ohio's solicitor general, agreed that Ames shouldn't face an extra hurdle. 'But that is not what happened in this case,' Gaiser said. Instead, he contended, Ames failed to show enough evidence that her sexual orientation played any role in the hiring decisions. Gaiser said the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct to say her suit could not move forward to a jury trial, even if the court's explanation for the dismissal implied Ames was held to a higher standard. 'We're not defending the exact language there,' he said. But Justice Elena Kagan called that language 'absolutely critical' and pointed out it was the reason the court took the case. Gaiser said that the court should still make clear that the burden can't solely be on the employer to show why an act wasn't discriminatory. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Ames' attorney whether there's a legitimate concern that siding with her would make it too easy for workers to sue. Wang said that wouldn't happen because the federal courts that don't use the "background circumstances" test haven't seen a 'flood of litigation.' Still, Jonathan Segal, a labor law expert at Duane Morris, predicted a ruling for Ames will boost the already increasing number of reverse discrimination suits. 'On a broader level, the ruling will reinforce to the public that the law prohibits discrimination equally against majority and minority groups alike,' he said in a statement after listening to the oral arguments. Ashley Robertson, an attorney for the Department of Justice who was given time to make the federal government's case for why the lower courts got the law wrong, said it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to clarify that evidentiary standards are the same for members of majority and minority groups. But Robertson emphasized that doesn't mean the cases should always go to trial. Employers are usually able to give an alternative explanation for a challenged action and that can be difficult for the worker to rebut, she said. In Ames' case, the Ohio Department of Youth Services said she was passed over for a promotion because she lacked the necessary vision and leadership skills. 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. A decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services is expected by summer. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court likely to side with woman in reverse discrimination case
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court appears likely to side with straight woman in `reverse discrimination' case
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed ready to rule − possibly unanimously − that members of a majority group do not face an extra hurdle when alleging 'reverse discrimination' in the workplace. 'We're in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me,' Justice Neil Gorsuch said. The case was being argued amid a raging battle in the country over diversity, equity and inclusion programs. But the justices steered clear of that larger debate and focused solely on the appeal of an Ohio civil servant, a heterosexual, who said she lost two jobs to gay co-workers she felt were less qualified. When Marlean Ames tried to sue the Ohio Department of Youth Services, lower courts said 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 that is 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 if she had been gay and the employees who got the jobs she wanted were not. 'At bottom, all Ms. Ames is asking for is equal justice under law,' Xiao Wang, one of her lawyers, told the court in referring to the phrase that appears above the main entrance to the Supreme Court. 'Not more justice, but certainly not less. And certainly not less because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion.' T. Elliot Gaiser, Ohio's solicitor general, agreed that Ames shouldn't face an extra hurdle. 'But that is not what happened in this case,' Gaiser said. Instead, he contended, Ames failed to show enough evidence that her sexual orientation played any role in the hiring decisions. Gaiser said the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct to say her suit could not move forward to a jury trial, even if the court's explanation for the dismissal implied Ames was held to a higher standard. 'We're not defending the exact language there,' he said. But Justice Elena Kagan called that language 'absolutely critical' and pointed out it was the reason the court took the case. Gaiser said that the court should still make clear that the burden can't solely be on the employer to show why an act wasn't discriminatory. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Ames' attorney whether there's a legitimate concern that siding with her would make it too easy for workers to sue. Wang said that wouldn't happen because the federal courts that don't use the "background circumstances" test haven't seen a 'flood of litigation.' Still, Jonathan Segal, a labor law expert at Duane Morris, predicted a ruling for Ames will boost the already increasing number of reverse discrimination suits. 'On a broader level, the ruling will reinforce to the public that the law prohibits discrimination equally against majority and minority groups alike,' he said in a statement after listening to the oral arguments. Ashley Robertson, an attorney for the Department of Justice who was given time to make the federal government's case for why the lower courts got the law wrong, said it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to clarify that evidentiary standards are the same for members of majority and minority groups. But Robertson emphasized that doesn't mean the cases should always go to trial. Employers are usually able to give an alternative explanation for a challenged action and that can be difficult for the worker to rebut, she said. In Ames' case, the Ohio Department of Youth Services said she was passed over for a promotion because she lacked the necessary vision and leadership skills. 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. A decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services is expected by summer. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court likely to side with woman in reverse discrimination case
