The Supreme Court has made it easier for people to file reverse discrimination suits after siding with a straight woman who wants to sue her employer.
The 9-0 ruling relates to a “background circumstances” rule applied to majority groups in some lower courts when they bring a discrimination case.
Majority groups generally include heterosexual individuals, white people, men, and cisgender individuals, while minority groups consist of those who have historically experienced systemic discrimination or underrepresentation.
Highlights
- The Supreme Court has made it easier for people to file reverse discrimination lawsuits.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated the 'background circumstances' rule demanding extra proof from majority groups is inconsistent with Title VII.
- Marlean Ames, a straight Ohio woman, alleges she was demoted and denied promotion due to discrimination by her gay boss.
The Supreme Court ruling will make it easier to file reverse discrimination suits
Image credits: Butch Dill - Pool/Getty Images
The background circumstances rule requires majority groups to provide stronger evidence, such as demonstrating a pattern of preferential treatment toward minority groups, to support their discrimination claims.
In the ruling, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: “We hold that this additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sex, among other things, and this includes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Marlean Ames, from Ohio, filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging her gay boss had discriminated against her for being straight.
Image credits: Maddie McGarvey/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
Due to the background circumstances rule, she initially failed to prove her case, as the court found she had not presented sufficient evidence.
The Supreme Court ruling now means she can file a lawsuit.
Jackson said it was clear from past cases that the standard for proving discrimination “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”
“The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle,” she added.
Ames was employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Service, which operates the state’s juvenile correctional system when she allegedly experienced discrimination.
Image credits: Maddie McGarvey/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
She was hired by the agency in 2004 to work as an executive secretary and eventually earned a promotion to program administrator.
In 2019, she pursued a new management opportunity within the agency’s recently established Office of Quality and Improvement.
Though she was interviewed for the role, the agency ultimately selected another candidate, a lesbian woman, for the position.
Just days after Ames’ interview, her supervisors removed her from the program administrator role.
She agreed to return to the secretarial job she had held when she first started at the agency, which came with a significant pay cut.
Marlean Ames alleges she was discriminated against for being heterosexual
Image credits: Maddie McGarvey/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
The agency then hired a gay man to fill the new management roles Ames had interviewed for.
Ames filed a lawsuit claiming she was passed over for the promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
She will now be able to pursue legal action after the Supreme Court ruling, which comes amid U.S. President Donald Trump’s push to end diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has taken decisive steps to dismantle federal DEI programs, describing them as “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral.”
He has directed federal agencies to eliminate DEI-related factors in hiring, promotions, and performance reviews.
Trump has also been targeting Harvard University over its DEI programs, claiming they undermine fairness and weaken academic standards.
Harvard has pushed back, defending its DEI efforts and refusing to give in to Trump’s attacks.
But it has led to some universities scaling back their own DEI initiative—with MIT notably shutting down its DEI office.