Supreme Court sides with Ohio woman in reverse discrimination case
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who claimed she was the victim of reverse discrimination because her employer denied her a promotion because she is straight.
In a unanimous decision in the case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the high court tossed out a ruling by a federal appeals court that dismissed Marlean Ames' claims because she failed to clear a higher bar applied to members of a majority group in order for her employment discrimination case to proceed. The justices concluded that a "background circumstances" requirement cannot be squared with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
The background circumstances rule required plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to put forth more evidence showing that their employer is "unusual" because it discriminates against the majority. Ames had argued that the requirement unfairly imposed a higher burden on her as a heterosexual woman.
The ruling from the Supreme Court makes it easier to pursue claims of reverse discrimination in 20 states and the District of Columbia that are covered by federal courts of appeals that still applied the standard.
Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the Supreme Court's case law "makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII 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."
Jackson noted that the requirement uniformly subjects all majority-group plaintiffs to "the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case."
Ames sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, after she said she was turned down for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and then demoted and replaced by a gay man. She alleged violations of Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, religion, national origin and sex, which includes sexual orientation. Ames accused the department of discriminating against her on the basis of sexual orientation.
A federal district court ruled for the Ohio Department of Youth Services after finding that it offered "legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons" for passing Ames over for the promotion. The court concluded that Ames' allegations were insufficient to establish the background circumstances necessary to make an initial case of reverse discrimination.
A plaintiff can clear that bar if they put forward evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or by presenting statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of a majority group.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the district court's decision and agreed that Ames failed to satisfy the background circumstances requirement.
Ames appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed in October to review the 6th Circuit's decision. That appeals court and four others — the 7th, 8th, 10th and D.C. Circuits — still applied the background circumstances standard, while seven others do not.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, criticized the background circumstances rule as "judge-made" and said it is "undoubtedly" contrary to Title VII and likely violates the Constitution.
"Courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII's anti-discrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs need not do so," Thomas wrote.
He said that the Supreme Court's decision "obviates the need for courts to engage in the 'sordid business'" of dividing people by race or other protected traits.
The dispute arrived before the high court as President Trump targeted diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs and practices throughout the federal government and fired federal employees in DEI roles. Large companies, too, dismantled their DEI policies following the Supreme Court's 2023 decision that ended affirmative action in college admissions.
