Woman ‘demoted for being straight’ as ‘reverse discrimination’ case reaches Supreme Court
US Supreme Court justices appear set to rule in favour of a woman who claims she faced workplace discrimination for being heterosexual.
Marlean Ames brought the “reverse discrimination” case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act after allegedly being passed over for promotions that went to gay colleagues.
The case could establish a significant precedent for how discrimination claims by majority groups are handled in American courts.
In 2023, Ames filed a civil lawsuit against the Ohio department of youth services, claiming discrimination as a “member of a majority group”.
She has worked at the agency for more than two decades and argued she was passed over for a promotion ultimately given to a lesbian in 2019.
Despite years of positive performance reviews, Ames alleged she was then demoted and her position was given to a gay employee.
The case reached the Supreme Court after lower courts dismissed it.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch noted there was “radical agreement” among justices and lawyers that the appeals court had dismissed Ames’s case too hastily.
Fellow conservative Amy Coney Barrett emphasised equality under the law, stating it did not matter if Ames “was gay or whether she was straight, she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII”.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
- Woke madness as ‘Manxies’ term deemed ‘racist’ by listener who urges term be scrapped
- Lord Nelson portraits replaced by images of YVETTE COOPER in Parliament in fresh BLM diversity drive
- ‘Woke’ National Trust SLAMMED for ‘dereliction of duty’ after ‘barbaric’ decision
Ames’s lawyers claimed her employer kept promotions open for months before giving them to gay workers who hadn’t applied or been interviewed.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor called it “suspicious” that someone “who’s gay, doesn’t have her level of college experience, and didn’t even want the job” was hired over Ames.
Chief Justice John Roberts presented a hypothetical scenario involving minority and majority employees, asking Ohio’s representatives if both cases should qualify for workplace discrimination proceedings.
Ohio’s solicitor-general, T Elliot Gaiser, agreed both cases should have equal chances in the legal system, stating that “everyone here agrees everyone should be treated equally”.
A ruling in Ames’s favour could establish a significant precedent for “reverse discrimination” cases brought by majority groups such as straight and white individuals.
Historically, such cases have faced a higher burden of proof than discrimination claims raised by minority groups.
The Supreme Court’s decision may level the playing field, ensuring all discrimination claims are evaluated under the same standards regardless of the claimant’s majority or minority status.
The case comes amid broader political tensions as the Trump administration continues its opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Department of Justice lawyer Ashley Robertson, who presented arguments on Wednesday, acknowledged concerns about frivolous litigation.
“We share Ohio’s concerns with making sure that meritless cases don’t reach trial,” Robertson said. “We simply think that raising the standard at step one would be exactly the wrong way to address that concern.”