WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday considers the novel legal question of whether a woman can pursue a workplace sex discrimination case over claims she was discriminated against because she is straight.
The court’s ultimate ruling could lower the bar for people belonging to majority groups to bring so-called reverse discrimination claims.
Marlean Ames brought a claim against the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, after a lesbian woman obtained a promotion she was also seeking. She was then demoted, and her old position was taken by a gay man.
Ames had worked at the department since 2004. Starting in 2017, she began reporting to a lesbian woman. She was denied the promotion she sought two years later and demoted soon after that.
Lower courts, including the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled for the state agency. Ames then turned to the Supreme Court.
Her lawyers are challenging precedent in some lower courts that says someone from a “majority group” has to meet a higher bar for a case to move forward than someone from a minority group.
Those courts, including the 6th Circuit, say such a plaintiff has to present “background circumstances” to show that the defendant is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,” Ames’ lawyers said in court papers.
If the court rules in Ames’ favor, it could affect workplace discrimination claims of all kinds. For example, it could make it easier for white people who claim they face racial discrimination as a result of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has targeted DEI programs, saying they are unlawful.
America First Legal, a conservative group with close ties to the Trump administration, filed a brief in Ames’ case citing cases it has brought against various companies, including Starbucks and IBM, alleging race and sex discrimination.
“Where applied, the ‘background circumstances’ rule is an atextual, unconstitutional, and arbitrary obstacle to the vindication of employees’ nondiscrimination rights,” the group’s lawyers wrote.
Before President Joe Biden left office, his administration had filed its own brief saying the “background circumstances” test should be ditched.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, argued in court papers that Ames failed to show she had been discriminated against.
Ames was demoted because new leadership in the agency wanted to restructure its operations to prioritize sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system, Yost said. Ames led a program aimed at combating rape in prison but was seen as difficult to work with, Yost said.
Officials involved in making those decisions are straight, Yost noted.
