Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
A former Ohio youth corrections worker is taking her discrimination case to the Supreme Court, arguing she was unfairly demoted and denied a promotion because she is heterosexual.
Marlean Ames, 60, claims she was passed over in favor of less-qualified gay colleagues, resulting in a significant pay cut and emotional distress.
Ames, who had a long and successful career within the Ohio Department of Youth Services, including numerous promotions and positive evaluations, said she was “shocked and hurt and humiliated” by the 2019 demotion, which slashed her salary by $40,000.
She alleges a pattern of discrimination, stating that at a time when she had a gay supervisor, she was passed over for a promotion given to a gay woman and ultimately demoted in favor of a gay man.
“That’s how I came to feel that I was being discriminated on because I was straight and pushed aside for them,” Ms Ames said.
Lower courts dismissed Ms Ames’s civil rights lawsuit, but the Supreme Court has agreed to hear her case next Wednesday. She is seeking monetary damages from the state.
The case has potentially significant implications for discrimination law. A ruling in Ms Ames’s favor could broaden the scope of the landmark federal anti-discrimination law, making it easier for individuals who are not members of minority groups – including white people and heterosexuals – to bring “reverse” discrimination claims.
The court’s 6-3 conservative majority adds another layer of complexity to the case and its potential outcome.
The dispute centers on how plaintiffs like Ms Ames must try to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex – including sexual orientation.
Ms Ames is challenging a requirement used by some US courts that plaintiffs from majority groups, such as white and straight people, must provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to make an initial – or “prima facie” – claim of discrimination under a seminal 1973 Supreme Court ruling that governs the multi-step process employed to resolve such cases.
These courts include the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Ms Ames. They require majority-group plaintiffs to show “background circumstances” indicating that a defendant accused of workplace bias is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
The 6th Circuit ruled that Ms Ames could not meet that bar, throwing out her case.
‘A fair shake’
“Discrimination is discrimination,” Ms Ames told Reuters.
“This will hopefully be able to help anyone who feels they’ve been discriminated on to get a fair shake in the courtroom and not have to go to the lengths that I had to go to.”
The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and other civil rights groups told the Supreme Court in a legal filing that Ms Ames is asking the justices “to interpret Title VII in a way that ignores the realities of this country’s persisting legacy of discrimination in evaluating disparate-treatment claims.”
The “background circumstances” inquiry allows courts to account for the reality of historical and present-day discrimination “against certain minority groups like Black and/or LGBTQ people, and the virtual absence of widespread discrimination targeting certain majority groups like white people and straight people,” the groups said.
Reverse discrimination lawsuits are increasing in the United States amid a backlash by conservatives and Republicans against initiatives in the public and private sectors to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in the workforce.
On his first day back in office, Republican President Donald Trump ordered the dismantling of such policies in federal agencies and encouraged private companies to follow suit. Conservative groups including America First Legal, which has filed numerous legal actions claiming anti-white and anti-male bias, have urged the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Ms Ames.
Louisiana State University employment law professor William Corbett said that if Ms Ames wins, “I think those who believe that reverse discrimination is a prevalent problem will see it as a victory and an adjustment that puts reverse and traditional discrimination claims on equal footing.”
Before Democratic former President Joe Biden left office, his administration filed a brief backing her. Edward Gilbert, an Ohio lawyer with a long history of representing local branches of the NAACP and minority clients in civil rights and employment cases, agreed to handle her case.
To Mr Gilbert, the “background circumstances” rule is unfair, regardless of whether the plaintiff’s background is minority or majority. The evidence requirements should be “equal, straight across the board,” Gilbert said.
The office of Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost in court papers defended the employment actions concerning Ms Ames as part of a Department of Youth Services restructuring.
The “background circumstances” requirement did not place a higher burden on Ms Ames because the “specific facts that give rise to a suspicion of discrimination differ from plaintiff to plaintiff,” Mr Yost’s office said.
Ms Ames started working in Ohio’s juvenile corrections system in 2004, and was promoted in 2014 to administrator of the department’s program aimed at complying with federal standards for preventing sexual abuse in its facilities.
In 2019, Ms Ames interviewed for a newly created “bureau chief” position, but was not offered the job. It was filled by a gay woman who had not applied for the post.
Around the same time, Ms Ames learned she was being demoted to her previous secretarial role, resulting in an annual pay cut from about $100,000 to $60,000. A gay man was selected to take her place.
Department leaders said Ms Ames lacked the vision and leadership skills needed for the new position, according to court filings.
The 6th Circuit ruled against Ms Ames, concluding that she could not show the required “background circumstances,” including that a gay person made the employment decisions in favor of gay people. The two people who had authority in those personnel decisions, the 6th Circuit noted, were straight.
‘This will be ironic’
Mr Corbett predicted that the Supreme Court will side with Ms Ames, making it easier for all plaintiffs to make a “prima facie” claim of workplace bias.
“This will be ironic in view of the fact that the prima facie case was fashioned based on the historical prevalence of certain types of discrimination – not discrimination against Caucasians and males,” Mr Corbett said.
Such a decision “may prompt the filing of more charges of reverse discrimination and more lawsuits,” leading to more costs for businesses to defend against them, Mr Corbett added.
Though Ms Ames has again been promoted in recent years, she said she still feels traumatized. She said she sued to “get some justice done.”
But Ms Ames, who calls herself a longtime ally to the LGBT community, said she wants people to understand that her efforts will benefit everyone.
“There’s no hate of any certain groups. There’s no animosity toward anybody,” Ms Ames said. “It’s actually helping people be able to have the same rights across the board as the law was intended.”
Read More: Straight woman claims ‘reverse discrimination’ after losing out on promotion
