A US Supreme Court judge appeared to be leaning Wednesday to make it easier for people from “majority backgrounds” such as white people and heterosexuals to pursue claims of workplace discrimination.
The court heard oral debate in cases that could transform workplace discrimination claims and unleash a flood of lawsuits from white people, straight people and men.
Marlene Ames has brought appeals to the highest court, claiming that she was taken over for work and demoted to be straight. She says she was taken away from her position as manager of a state agency for youth services in Ohio and replaced by a gay man.
Her petition to the Supreme Court challenges the way in which such “reverse discrimination” cases were handled in lower courts. Previous rulings found that people from majority groups, such as men, white people and straight people, must meet higher legal bars than people from minority groups when proving workplace bias.
Ames asked the Supreme Court to revive her civil rights lawsuit against her employer, Ohio’s Department of Youth Services, after the lower court took sides with the state. Both liberals and conservatives appeared poised on Wednesday to abandon the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and a direct lower court ruling against Ames.
The interests of the case are high. As is widely expected, if the Supreme Court is widely anticipated, the floodgates will be open to discrimination claims from the majority group.
Programs that seek to increase diversity, equity and inclusion may be suitable for the underrepresented minority demographics among the workforce when DEIs are already undergoing sustained assault by the Trump administration.
The politically charged nature of the case was highlighted when the Supreme Court submitted an outline of Amicus in favour of Ames’s claims when it was founded by America’s first law, the American First Legal and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Many large companies claimed that they “illegally awarded minorities work, special benefits, bonuses and other career opportunities while openly excluded white people (and Asians), heterosexuals and men.”
Groups opposing Ames’ lawsuit have rebutted that black people and other minority groups are far more likely to be subject to workplace bias, and say that the opposite discrimination is rare.
Ames’ lawsuit was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a 1964 law, one of the best achievements of the civil rights movement.
At issue is a law prohibiting discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, and gender, including sexual orientation, which is the requirement that a claimant in a majority group provides more evidence than a minority plaintiff and demonstrates that he faces discrimination under Title VII.
These courts say that discrimination against these workers is relatively rare, which justifies a higher bar.
The Sixth Circuit concluded in 2023 that Ames did not show the necessary “background situation” that demonstrated that the defendant accused of workplace bias was “an unusual employer discriminating against the majority.”
Ames said there was a gay supervisor when he was handed over in 2019 for a promotion in favor of gay women and demoted in favor of gay men. She sued in 2020 for financial damages.
Ashley Robertson, who advocates for the U.S. Department of Justice, said the ruling in favour of Ohio would put screenings for merit discrimination cases at risk. The plaintiff’s burden is already high, Robertson said, and the Sixth Circuit in this case added an additional requirement that many plaintiffs cannot meet.
Conservative Judge Amy Connie Barrett asked Robertson to address Ohio’s concerns. Robertson said the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that enforces the law against job bias, removed the high standards almost 20 years ago, and that other mechanisms exist for the EEOC and courts to screen for frivolous cases.
“We’ll share Ohio’s concerns to keep futile cases from being brought to justice,” added Robertson. “We simply think raising the standard in step 1 is the very wrong way to address that concern.”
Ketanji Brown Jackson of Liberal Justice suggested that the position discussed by Elliot Geiser, an attorney for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, would place a heavy burden on plaintiffs at the early stages of the legal process.
Geyser said Ohio “it’s wrong to keep litigators at a higher standard because of protected characteristics,” but that wasn’t what happened in this case. Geyser said Ames failed to establish that everyone is motivated by sexual orientation when making employment decisions that affected the “sexual orientation, and even orientation” of two gay employees.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said Geiser appears to agree with Ames on the central issue of the case. “The question presented is whether a majority group plaintiff must show more than a minority group plaintiff. Here, whether a straight person must show someone more than a gay person,” Kagan said. “Everyone here says, ‘No’. You say “No.” ”
Kagan told Gaiser he was now asking the judicial officers to squeeze a variety of other issues.
Reuters contributed to the report
