The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously sided with an Ohio woman who claimed she faced workplace discrimination for being heterosexual. The decision could pave the way for more legal actions from individuals in majority groups who believe they’ve been unfairly treated in the workplace.
Marlean Ames had sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was overlooked for positions that were later filled by openly gay candidates. The court agreed with Ames’ argument that majority-group members should not face a tougher legal standard than minority-group individuals when bringing forward claims of discrimination.
This decision overturns a precedent used in nearly half of the U.S. federal courts that required majority-group plaintiffs to demonstrate “background circumstances” to support their discrimination claims.
Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated: “The Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to bear an additional burden at step one. But the text of Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.”
She further explained that Title VII focuses on discrimination against individuals rather than groups, with its protections applying to “any individual” facing bias due to protected characteristics. “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” she added.
Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser, representing the defence, argued that Ames failed to prove she was subjected to any anti-heterosexual bias. Regardless of the burden of proof, he maintained, Ames could not demonstrate that such discrimination occurred.
Following the ruling, Ames’ case will return to the lower courts, where she will now attempt to prove her discrimination claim under the revised, more equitable legal framework.
Ames had spent two decades working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, a state agency responsible for the detention and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. She had been promoted to an administrator role in 2014. However, in 2017, Ginine Trim, a gay woman, became her supervisor.
In late 2018, Trim gave Ames a performance review, noting she generally met expectations but had room to improve in three areas. In April 2019, Ames applied for the role of Bureau Chief of Quality but was not selected. A month later, her position as PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) administrator was terminated, and she was demoted to a previous role, resulting in a pay cut from $47.22 to $28.40 per hour.
Although the agency’s heterosexual director and assistant director made the demotion decision, they reportedly offered differing justifications — one stating the role was “at-will,” and another expressing a desire for someone who exceeded expectations, not merely met them.
Later that year, the agency hired 25-year-old gay man Alexander Stojsavljevic as PREA administrator and appointed a gay woman, Yolanda Frierson, as Bureau Chief of Quality. Ames filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and subsequently a lawsuit. Lower courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled against her, citing insufficient evidence and her failure to establish she belonged to a “protected class.”
However, Ames cited the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which held that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination under Title VII.
Now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s latest ruling, Ames will get another chance to argue her case — this time, without the extra legal burden previously imposed on majority-group plaintiffs.
🌐 Meta Description (SEO)
🎯 Focus Keyphrase
📣 Social Media Summary
Would you like this version styled for a blog post or newsletter format as well?
