The highest court in the U.S. has ruled in favour of progressing a lawsuit filed by a heterosexual woman who alleged ‘reverse discrimination’ after she was denied a promotion “in favour of another gay candidate”.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workplace discrimination “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group”.
Here’s what you need to know.
Discrimination
Marlean Ames joined the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary in 2004. During her time there, she was promoted to program administrator.
In 2019, Mes sought another promotion and interviewed for a newly created managerial role, but the department “ultimately hired a different candidate—a lesbian woman—to fill the role.”
Days after she interviewed for the job, she was demoted to the role she held when she initially joined the agency and received “a significant pay cut.” Her role was replaced by a gay man.
Ames then filed a lawsuit against the department, which she later lost. She tried to overturn the ruling in an appeal case, but failed.
The ruling was based on the idea that because Ames comes from a majority group (straight), she needed to provide greater evidence than someone who came from a minority group. Both courts said she failed to meet this higher threshold of evidence.
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.
Your details:
The appeals court said she did not provide sufficient evidence that her workplace was an “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
Court ruling
This week’s Supreme Court ruling did not decide on Ames’ original case. Instead, it needed to rule on whether U.S. law does in fact require a person from a majority group to meet a higher burden of proof.
The court unanimously decided that it does not.
It ruled that the standard of proof in workplace discrimination laws should be the same for everyone, regardless of whether they are from a majority or a minority group.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote the justices’ response, said the case’s original ruling undermines federal laws that establish the “same protections for every individual”.
She said that federal laws do not draw “distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs”, meaning the lower court’s decision to “impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone” was unfair.
The ruling gives way for Ames’ original ‘reverse discrimination’ case to be reheard in court.
