Justices to Review Employment Discrimination Case Against Ohio Youth Services Department
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who claims she faced workplace discrimination because she is heterosexual. Ames, a 20-year employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleges that she was passed over for promotions and eventually demoted in favor of LGBTQ colleagues, leading to a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace.
Lower Courts Dismiss Ames’ Lawsuit
Ames initially filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, claiming she was subjected to sex discrimination when she was denied a promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. However, both the trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her. The courts determined that Ames did not provide sufficient evidence that she was discriminated against because she is part of a majority group, i.e., heterosexual individuals.
Higher Standard for Majority Group Discrimination Claims
A key issue in the case is whether the 6th Circuit, along with several other appellate courts, applies a higher standard for discrimination claims made by members of majority groups. In such cases, plaintiffs must provide “background circumstances” suggesting that members of the minority group, in this case, LGBTQ individuals, were responsible for the employment decisions. Plaintiffs must also present statistical evidence indicating a pattern of discrimination against the majority group.
The 6th Circuit dismissed Ames’ lawsuit because she failed to meet these standards. Specifically, she did not show evidence that LGBTQ people made the employment decisions that affected her career or provide statistical data demonstrating discrimination against heterosexual employees.
Supreme Court to Weigh In
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case signals that the justices are willing to examine whether the standard for majority group discrimination claims is appropriate under Title VII. Arguments in the case are expected to take place early next year, and the ruling could have broader implications for how workplace discrimination claims are evaluated, especially when they are brought by members of majority groups.
Potential Impact on Employment Discrimination Law
The outcome of the case could reshape how courts approach claims of reverse discrimination in employment. Should the Supreme Court rule in Ames’ favor, it could lower the burden of proof for members of majority groups alleging bias in hiring or promotions based on sex, race, or sexual orientation. Conversely, a ruling against Ames would reaffirm the current legal framework, which imposes a higher standard for such claims.
