Latest news with #SixthCircuit
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court revives straight woman's 'reverse discrimination' suit
June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman can move forward with her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit, which claimed "reverse discrimination." The justices voted 9-0 to side with Marlean Ames, ruling that she faced a higher burden to be able to sue for discrimination as a straight woman after she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of two LGBTQ applicants. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs," the court wrote. Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was denied a management position in favor of a lesbian woman hired for that job. She also lost out on another job at the agency when a gay man was hired instead as a program administrator. The lower court judgment was vacated and the Ames case was remanded back to the lower court to be heard applying the Supreme Court's finding. The decision said the Sixth Circuit erred when it "implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs-those who are members of majority groups-to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard." The ruling makes it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to argue "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. At issue was the "background circumstances" rule. As interpreted by the Sixth Circuit, that rule requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in Title VII lawsuits. "Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," the Supreme Court decision said. "The Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one. But the text of Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." The Supreme Court said that provision "focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics." The high court rejected Ohio's argument that the "background circumstances" rule does not subject majority-group plaintiffs to a heightened legal standard when they sue alleging discrimination under Title VII. "The 'background circumstances' rule -- which subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case -- ignores the Court's instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard," the Supreme Court wrote. The Supreme Court held 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." The Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Ohio maintained Ames was not chosen for the jobs in question due to her lack of the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she was straight. A three-judge Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed that Ames would have been likely to prevail if she was a gay woman. But they ruled against her due to the higher burden created by the Sixth Circuit interpretation of the "background circumstances" rule.
UPI
2 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
Supreme Court revives straight woman's 'reverse discrimination' suit
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman denied a management position in favor of gay hires can revive her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit. File Photo by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a straight woman can move forward with her Title VII Civil Rights Act job discrimination lawsuit, which claimed "reverse discrimination." The justices voted 9-0 to side with Marlean Ames, ruling that she faced a higher burden to be able to sue for discrimination as a straight woman after she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of two LGBTQ applicants. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs," the court wrote. Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was denied a management position in favor of a lesbian woman hired for that job. She also lost out on another job at the agency when a gay man was hired instead as a program administrator. The lower court judgment was vacated and the Ames case was remanded back to the lower court to be heard applying the Supreme Court's finding. The decision said the Sixth Circuit erred when it "implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs-those who are members of majority groups-to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard." The ruling makes it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to argue "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. At issue was the "background circumstances" rule. As interpreted by the Sixth Circuit, that rule requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in Title VII lawsuits. "Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," the Supreme Court decision said. "The Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one. But the text of Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." The Supreme Court said that provision "focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against 'any individual' because of protected characteristics." The high court rejected Ohio's argument that the "background circumstances" rule does not subject majority-group plaintiffs to a heightened legal standard when they sue alleging discrimination under Title VII. "The 'background circumstances' rule -- which subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case -- ignores the Court's instruction to avoid inflexible applications of the prima facie standard," the Supreme Court wrote. The Supreme Court held 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." The Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Ohio maintained Ames was not chosen for the jobs in question due to her lack of the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she was straight. A three-judge Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed that Ames would have been likely to prevail if she was a gay woman. But they ruled against her due to the higher burden created by the Sixth Circuit interpretation of the "background circumstances" rule.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Gives Win To Majority Group Claims Of Discrimination
'Reverse discrimination' just got a lot easier to prove. The Supreme Court issued a unanimousruling Thursday that reduces the burden of proof that people who are part of a 'majority group' must provide when they sue for discrimination and remanded the decision back to the Sixth Circuit. 'This Court's precedents reinforce that understanding of the statute, and make 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,' the opinion states. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court on Thursday. At question was the standard of proof that members of majority groups must bring when claiming discrimination, and whether they should be held to a higher standard than members of 'protected classes.' The ruling stems from a lawsuit that started in 2020, when Marlean Ames sued her former employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for discrimination based on her sexual orientation. Ames, who is straight, alleged that she had been discriminated against by gay superiors. Ames started working at the agency that oversees juvenile corrections in 2004 and, after a decade, she had moved up the ranks from the role of an executive secretary to program administrator. When a bureau chief position opened up at the department in 2019, she applied. Just a year earlier, Ames underwent a performance evaluation by her boss, a gay woman. Her boss found Ames mostly met expectations but rarely exceeded them. According to court records, there were concerns that Ames lacked the 'vision' and leadership skills required for the bureau chief role. Ames was passed over for the promotion and then demoted to another role that paid less than she had previously been earning. According to Ames, this wasn't due to her performance but because she was straight. The agency said it passed on Ames because of concerns over her leadership abilities and that, historically, she had been 'abrasive and not collaborative' though her work ethic was considered strong. When she sued for discrimination based on her sexual orientation, Ames noted that the person who evaluated her was gay and so was the person who got the promotion she had applied for. The individual who actually made the hiring decision for that position, however, was straight. Initially, a federal district court in Ohio tossed Ames' lawsuit, finding she had failed to prove there was a pattern of discrimination by gay people at the department against straight people. As a heterosexual, the courts consider Ames part of a majority group, as opposed to people who are part of a protected class. Protected classes cover a person's sex, sexual orientation, age, ancestry, color, religion and more. But for a person in the majority to successfully sue for discrimination, some courts — not all — require evidence of 'background circumstances' to support their claim. Background circumstances must show that the person or people outside the majority are engaged in an unusual pattern of discrimination against the majority. Ames never proved that pattern, according to the district court, and when she appealed, judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit didn't think she had proved it either. (Currently, only a handful of circuits require background circumstances, including the 6th Circuit; others, like the uber-conservative 5th Circuit, don't apply the standard at all. And notably, the background circumstances rule has also been rejected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission itself, the very body that oversees enforcement of laws that make discrimination illegal.) When Ames' lawyers came to the Supreme Court in February and asked the high court to reverse the 6th Circuit's decisions, the justices seemed to signal how they would rule, as they asked questions about the fairness of requiring more burden of proof for one group of people versus another when they are suing for discrimination. 'For most plaintiffs,' Justice Jackson wrote, the initial steps they must take to provide a burden of proof 'is not onerous.' 'A plaintiff may satisfy it simply by presenting evidence 'that she applied for an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.' But, under Sixth Circuit precedent, plaintiffs who are members of a majority group bear an additional burden at step one: They must also establish 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.'' The Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, the justice added, can't 'be squared with the text of Title VII or our longstanding precedents.' 'And nothing Ohio has said, in its brief or at oral argument, persuades us otherwise,' she wrote. With the background circumstances doctrine unwound, the Supreme Court may have granted the Trump administration a huge gift: Since January, the administration has been dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion programs at a near constant clip. With the door now flung open, reverse discrimination cases are expected to flourish. This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Pardon me, Mr. President
Mediators like to tell a story about two kids fighting over an orange when the exasperated dad enters the room, snatches the orange, cuts it in half and hands each kid half. Problem solved, right? Well, not exactly. As it turns out, one kid wanted the peel and the other wanted the fruit. The solution isn't to cut the orange in half. It's to peel it. This story reminds me of two pardons President Donald Trump recently granted. In the first, Trump pardoned Paul Walczak. Walczak was charged with 13 counts of tax fraud, based on his withholding pay from employees at his nursing home. According to prosecutors, Walczak used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle that included a $2 million yacht and shopping sprees to Bergdorf and Cartier. Part of Walczak's sentence was a "restitution" order, meaning he had to return what he stole to the victims. But thanks to the pardon, Walczak no longer must repay the victims. In April of this year, Walczak's mother paid $1 million to attend a Trump fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago. A little more than a month later, the pardon came through. But this column does not concern the corruption here. Others can comment on that. This column concerns Trump as the bumbling father. The timing of the pardon – before Walczak paid restitution – means that ordinary Americans (e.g. the ones whose mom can't write a $1 million check) are hung out to dry. Remember, this is not a case where Walczak has maintained his innocence. He admitted he ripped off his employees. If Trump felt a pardon was warranted, why not wait until the victims were compensated? Like the exasperated dad, Trump apparently didn't bother thinking through the problem. In the case of P.G. Sittenfeld's pardon, Trump jumped in too quickly as well. In upholding Sittenfeld's conviction, the Sixth Circuit noted that there were underlying legal issues with the case that the Supreme Court should address. Given that the Sittenfeld case examined the fine line between political fundraising and bribery, a Supreme Court decision could guide politicians and prosecutors nationwide. But thanks to the pardon, the case is moot, and the high court won't have a chance to issue a clarifying ruling. It's not clear why Trump rushed to this pardon, but his doing so eliminates the prospect for now that the law will get some needed clarity. Again, Trump could have waited for the Supreme Court to rule, considering that's their job. But an exasperated dad doesn't bother to consider the consequences. And that's exasperating for everyone. And speaking of people doing their jobs, Trump's pardon of Sittenfeld may not have cheated victims out of restitution, but it was an unwarranted slap in the face of Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Gladfelter and her team. Gladfelter and her team secured an indictment, tried the case to a jury and successfully argued the appeal in the Sixth Circuit. In short, she and the courts did their job. But apparently Trump knows better than these trained professionals. If Trump believes that political corruption ought not be punished, he should have let the Sittenfeld appeal play out and/or encourage Congress to change the law. But one off, arbitrary pardons is a slipshod way to go about it. Jack Greiner is a partner at Faruki PLL law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Strictly Legal | Pardon me, Mr. President
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Yahoo
Grand jury to hear case of man charged in death of Amite County child
AMITE COUNTY, Miss. (WJTV) – A grand jury will hear the case of a man who is charged in the death of an Amite County 10-year-old. Investigator Danny Meaux, with the Amite County Sheriff's Office, said the incident occurred on Old 24 Compromise Road between 11:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. on April 6, 2025. Two detained after man killed at Hernando apartment According to Meaux, the victim, Jordan Hill, was on an ATV when he was hit by a truck. Investigators said the suspect, Cody Rollinson, was arrested the day of the incident. He was charged with possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle and felony leaving the scene of an accident. The Natchez Democrat reported the charges against Rollinson could be upgraded to vehicular homicide, pending the grand jury's decision. Sixth Circuit District Attorney Tim Cotton said toxicology reports from the accident have not been completed. During his initial court appearance in April, Rollinson received a $41,000 bond. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
