Latest news with #reverseDiscrimination
Bloomberg
2 days ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
‘Reverse Discrimination' Ruling Is a Win for the Rule of Law
White individuals and straight people do not need to meet a higher burden of proof than members of minority groups to prevail in employment discrimination suits, the Supreme Court held Thursday. The immediate effect is to make so-called 'reverse discrimination' claims easier to bring. However, the decision also solidifies the existing legal framework for workplace discrimination — a framework that the court's ultra-conservative justices would like to upend. The result is not so much a win for conservatives or liberals as for legal stability. The case, Ames v. Ohio, arose when a straight White woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services applied for a management position, which instead went to a lesbian candidate. She was subsequently demoted, and her old job was given to a gay man. Ames sued, alleging these decisions amounted to employment discrimination.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Discrimination isn't exclusive to one race': Local attorney weighs in on new Supreme Court ruling
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) — A unanimous Supreme Court decision Thursday makes it easier for people to pursue reverse discrimination lawsuits. 'The case kind of stands for the unexceptional proposition that racism and discrimination is not exclusive to one race or sexual orientation,' Mastando & Artrip Employment Attorney Eric Artrip said. Tuberville raised $1.9 million on first day of governor bid, $3 million in first week The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a straight Ohio woman who claimed she was passed over for work opportunities because of her sexual orientation. She said she did not receive a promotion and was subsequently demoted from her position, with LGBTQ+ candidates, who Ames said were less qualified, filling both roles. Marlean Ames has worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. Initially, lower courts decided against her, ruling that she did not have enough evidence to prove her case, thus driving it upwards. The Supreme Court ruled in Ames' favor, saying that the lower courts requiring a higher burden of proof for plaintiffs in majority groups violates Title VII. '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 other words, courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII's antidiscrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs neednot do so. Such a rule is undoubtedly contrary to Title VII, and likely violates the Constitution, under which 'there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race.'' Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, Opinion of the Court in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. 'There were three Judicial Circuits that required more evidence to establish discrimination if you were male or Caucasian,' Artrip said. 'The ruling today says that that is no longer valid or required.' 📲 to stay updated on the go. 📧 to have news sent to your inbox. Artrip said about 85% of the cases he covers are workplace discrimination lawsuits. When it comes to that burden of proof, he said it's rare that employers are outwardly discriminatory. Thus, most evidence is circumstantial. 'If her supervisor had said, 'We're not going to promote you because we are looking for a gay female in that role,' that would be direct evidence of discrimination,' Artrip said. 'We don't get a lot of those. So, typically, what we do is we look at the circumstances surrounding the failure to promote or the decision to terminate, and say that was a motivating factor in that decision.' While Artrip said the ruling simply states that everyone is protected under Title VII, he argues the ruling takes another swing at DEI. 'This decision may make it easier for Caucasians to sue for failure to promote or failure to hire,' Artrip said. 'It's really another blow to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.' Several Supreme Court Justices wrote concurring opinions to Justice Jackson's opinion. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Hear, Hear, Sotomayor and Jackson
The Supreme Court issued four unanimous opinions Thursday, including in two cases touching on the culture wars. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote one, ending an unfair legal bar to lawsuits alleging so-called reverse discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor had the other one, saying Wisconsin was wrong to deny a tax exemption to a Catholic Charities nonprofit. That first outcome isn't a surprise, given the tone at oral arguments. Marlean Ames claims that while working under a gay boss, she was passed over for less-qualified gay competitors. Her employer, the state of Ohio, denies wrongdoing. But the lower courts threw out the case essentially because Ms. Ames, who is straight, is a member of a majority group. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, under its legal test, Ms. Ames needed to substantiate 'the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Yes, a higher legal standard that applies in only some discrimination cases, based on the plaintiff's race or sex. Justice Jackson's opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services cites the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: '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.'
South China Morning Post
3 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
US Supreme Court sides with woman who says she was demoted because she is straight
The US Supreme Court made it easier on Thursday for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace 'reverse' discrimination, reviving an Ohio woman's lawsuit claiming she was illegally denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual. Advertisement The justices, in a 9-0 ruling written by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting a civil rights lawsuit by the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, against her employer, Ohio's Department of Youth Services. Ames said she had a gay supervisor when she was passed over for a promotion in favour of a gay woman and demoted, with a pay cut, in favour of a gay man. The dispute centred on how plaintiffs like Ames must try to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex – including sexual orientation. Ames challenged a requirement used by some US courts that plaintiffs from majority groups must provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to make an initial – or 'prima facie' – claim of discrimination under a 1973 Supreme Court ruling that governs the multi-step process employed to resolve such cases. Advertisement These courts include the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Ames. They require majority-group plaintiffs to show 'background circumstances' indicating that a defendant accused of workplace bias is 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority'.
Al Jazeera
3 days ago
- Business
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court clears greater path for ‘reverse discrimination' claims
The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling that will make it easier for people to claim workplace 'reverse' discrimination based on identities such as being white or heterosexual, in a victory for conservatives who have long pushed back against laws that protect minorities. The nation's highest court ruled unanimously on Thursday in favour of an Ohio woman named Marlean Ames, who said she was passed over for a promotion at work because she is straight. The decision reverses a previous ruling by a lower court stating that plaintiffs from some majority groups must show 'background circumstances' to demonstrate that their employer is 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority', rather than minority groups that have historically faced discrimination in the US. 'We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs,' wrote liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.' The Thursday ruling could affect lawsuits in 20 different states and the District of Columbia, striking a blow to a previous practice wherein members of groups who have not historically been on the receiving end of discriminatory practices had to clear a higher bar when pushing claims of workplace civil rights violations. Conservatives in the US have argued for years that steps to address the legacy of discrimination against ethnic and racial minorities, such as considering race in academic admission or job recruitment, themselves constitute a form of discrimination against white people. Ames previously stated that she was 'pushed aside' at her job at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in favour of LGBTQ employees. She sued for damages in 2020, alleging that her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, originally passed during the civil rights struggle for Black people in the US, had been violated. The state's Republican Attorney General Dave Yost defended the department's actions in court papers, stating that department leaders had said Ames lacked the vision and leadership for the job for which she was rejected.
