The Supreme Court appears poised to side with an Ohio woman claiming she faced workplace discrimination for being heterosexual, a case that could reshape how majority groups pursue discrimination claims under federal law.
During Wednesday’s arguments, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh articulated what seemed to be the emerging consensus: “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes.”
Marlean Ames, a 20-year veteran of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleges she was denied a promotion and subsequently demoted because she is heterosexual, with both positions going to LGBTQ individuals. Her case challenges the additional “background circumstances” requirement that some federal appeals courts, including the 6th Circuit, impose when majority group members file discrimination claims.
The 6th Circuit ruled against Ames, noting she failed to provide evidence such as proof that LGBTQ people made the employment decisions or statistics showing a pattern of discrimination against heterosexuals.
Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Geiser defended the state’s position, arguing that decision-makers weren’t even aware of Ames’ sexual orientation. However, he didn’t strongly oppose the court’s apparent direction, acknowledging, “Everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally.”
This prompted Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to observe, “We’re in radical agreement on that today.”
Conservative groups like America First Legal have filed briefs supporting Ames, arguing that majority groups increasingly face discrimination due to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. They contend the notion that discrimination against majority groups is rare “is highly suspect in this age of hiring based on ’diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”
The Trump administration has moved to eliminate DEI initiatives in federal government and reduce support for such programs elsewhere, though some of these efforts have been temporarily blocked in court.
The case could potentially establish a uniform standard for all discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regardless of whether the complainant belongs to a majority or minority group.
Notably, despite the political backdrop of DEI controversies, the justices did not mention these policies during Wednesday’s arguments, focusing instead on the legal standards for proving discrimination.
Read more: Supreme Court seems likely to rule for Ohio woman claiming job bias because she’s straight
This article is written with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence based solely on Washington Times original reporting and wire services. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Ann Wog, Managing Editor for Digital, at awog@washingtontimes.com
The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.