The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on Thursday will make it easier to file “reverse discrimination” lawsuits. The case involved a straight woman who claimed she was denied a promotion and subsequently demoted because of her sexual orientation.
This ruling marks a shift from prior court rulings, which had set a higher standard for discrimination cases brought by members of majority groups, such as white and heterosexual individuals, under federal civil rights law.
However, the Supreme Court stated that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on factors including race and sexual orientation, does not distinguish between plaintiffs from majority and minority groups. According to the court, the law makes it illegal to discriminate against “any individual” regarding employment conditions, compensation, or hiring due to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the court, explained that Congress intended to provide equal protection for every “individual,” regardless of their majority or minority status, leaving no room for courts to impose extra requirements only on plaintiffs from majority groups.
Marlean Ames filed the lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she began working in 2004. In 2019, after she was denied a promotion, a less senior lesbian colleague received it instead. Later, Ames was demoted, and her former position was given to a less experienced gay male colleague.
Ames sued under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the promotion and then demoted because of her sexual orientation.
However, her supervisors argued that Ames was not promoted because she lacked the necessary vision and leadership abilities for the position and that she was demoted due to concerns about her leadership skills.
Lower courts had previously dismissed Ames’s lawsuit, stating that it did not provide sufficient “background circumstances” to suggest that the employer was one that “discriminates against the majority.” The Supreme Court, however, overturned this decision, stating that this requirement was “not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute.”
“`
