Supreme Court sides with woman who says she suffered job discrimination for being straight

The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a lawsuit by an Ohio woman who said her bosses discriminated against her for being straight.
The court unanimously ruled that members of majority groups do not face a higher legal standard than minorities to prevail in so-called reverse discrimination lawsuits under Title VII, the federal civil rights law that bars employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex and other protected characteristics.
The decision, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, comes as President Donald Trump has sought to deploy the nation's civil rights laws and agencies to combat what he sees as discrimination against white people and other majority groups. The ruling could make it easier for men and white people to successfully sue their employers for job discrimination.
Lower courts had thrown out the lawsuit by Marlean Ames, who alleged that she was passed over for an Ohio state government job and then demoted from her existing post in favor of LGBTQ+ candidates. The lower courts said that members of majority groups suing for discrimination had to show 'background circumstances' suggesting that their bosses were among the 'rare' group of employers who were biased against the majority. Minorities suing for discrimination were not required to show analogous 'background circumstances' about their employers under the legal test that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had adopted.
Jackson wrote that the 6th Circuit's requirement 'cannot be squared' with federal civil rights law or other judicial precedent.
'Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' the opinion states.
The decision was an unsparing rebuke of the 'background circumstances' test and Ohio's legal arguments, stating at one point that the state's defense 'misses the mark by a mile.'
Thursday's decision was unsurprising, given that the justices were highly skeptical of the state's position during oral arguments in February.
Jackson's opinion did not explicitly discuss the implications for cases filed by white people. But Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote a concurring opinion in which he said that racial discrimination lawsuits brought by white people should not face a higher legal bar than those brought by minorities. Writing that he was 'pleased' with the court's ruling, he argued that the murkiness of racial classifications can make it difficult to determine whether someone is part of the majority.
'Even if courts could identify all the relevant racial groups and their boundaries, courts would still struggle to determine which racial groups make up a majority,' Thomas wrote, in an opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday vacated the appeals court's ruling and sent the case back for further consideration, meaning Ames will get a chance to prove her discrimination claims against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which runs the state's juvenile detention centers.
A spokesperson for the Ohio attorney general's office, which defended the case, said the Supreme Court 'made clear that this case is not over,' and it still believes Ames was treated fairly.
'We look forward to fully pressing those arguments as the case moves forward because the Ohio Department of Youth Services did not engage in unlawful discrimination,' spokesperson Dominic Binkley said in a statement.
The state argued previously that Ames was not chosen for the job she applied for and then demoted because she lacked experience relevant to both positions.
In addition to uniting the Supreme Court, the case is also notable for being one in which both the Biden and Trump administrations, as well as conservative groups like America First Legal, all lined up behind the worker and against the 'background circumstances' standard.
Some civil rights groups were concerned, however, that doing so could lead to an uptick of meritless 'reverse discrimination' cases.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Associated Press

2 hours ago

• Associated Press

DEA Judge Mulrooney's MMJ Marijuana Ruling May Be DEA's Last Stand Before the Constitution Strikes Back

Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ BioPharma Cultivation a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations and DEA violations is now preserved - the 'Axon-Jarkesy defense' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / June 22, 2025 / In a move that now appears both unconstitutional and strategically reckless, the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney II has ruled against MMJ BioPharma Cultivation - not by adjudicating evidence, but by canceling the hearing altogether, shutting the courtroom door before any facts could be presented. This denial of due process is not just procedural misconduct. It stands in direct violation of recent Supreme Court precedent - namely, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (2023) and Jarkesy v. SEC (2024) - which fundamentally altered the authority of federal agencies to conduct internal administrative hearings shielded from constitutional scrutiny. Why DEA's ALJ System is Constitutionally Cracked In Axon v. FTC, the Supreme Court held that constitutional challenges to federal administrative adjudication systems need not wait until after the agency's internal process is complete. The ruling opened the door for early judicial review - precisely to prevent agencies like the DEA from causing irreparable harm to regulated parties before a federal court can weigh in. Justice Gorsuch put it plainly: 'A proceeding that has already happened cannot be undone.' But that is exactly what happened to MMJ BioPharma Cultivation. Despite spending seven years pursuing a legally sound registration to grow marijuana for FDA-sanctioned clinical trials, MMJ was denied the chance to be heard. Judge Mulrooney ruled - without trial - that the case could be decided on the papers, ignoring contested facts, ignoring ex parte communications concerns, and ignoring the constitutional structure of justice itself. Jarkesy and the Death Knell for DEA's Shadow Court The Supreme Court's decision in Jarkesy v. SEC went even further. The Court ruled that administrative adjudications violate the Constitution on multiple fronts: The DEA's administrative system which allowed Judge Mulrooney to operate unchecked, issue rulings without testimony, and sabotage a life sciences company without judicial oversight - now sits squarely in the crosshairs of both Axon and Jarkesy. MMJ BioPharma Cultivation: The Victim of an Unconstitutional Machine MMJ BioPharma Cultivation is not a fringe operation. It is the only DEA applicant actively pursuing pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoid therapies under FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols, including a manufactured softgel formulation for Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Despite this, Judge Mulrooney's June 2025 ruling canceled a long-scheduled hearing without any opportunity for MMJ to introduce its DEA-compliant facility documentation, binding supply agreements, or evidence of DEA ex parte interference. Even worse, the company was never formally noticed of the pretrial decision - a basic requirement of any fair proceeding. Instead of adjudicating facts, Mulrooney rubber-stamped DEA's bureaucratic inertia. What's Next? The Courts Must Clean Up the DEA's Mess The Supreme Court has been crystal clear: agencies like the DEA do not have unreviewable authority over people's rights, livelihoods, or innovations. Congress did not create 'mini-courts' within executive agencies to bypass the Constitution. Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations is now preserved - the 'Axon Side-Step' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. If MMJ's case advances to the D.C. Circuit or even the Supreme Court, it may well be the case that dismantles the DEA's internal adjudication regime once and for all. In the end, the question is no longer whether MMJ BioPharma has been mistreated. The question is whether the DEA's system can survive the Constitution. MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan. CONTACT: Madison Hisey [email protected] 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings press release

New York Post

3 hours ago

• New York Post

SCOTUS' trans ruling: Letters to the Editor — June 23, 2025

The Issue: The Supreme Court upholding Tennessee's ban on gender transition surgery for minors. On the day of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Tennessee ban on transitions for minors, the mainstream media (especially PBS) was quick to cry out what a 'setback' this ruling was for 'trans' rights ('Trans sense,' June 19). The agonies brought on by impulsive decisions made by addled youngsters were not discussed. Advertisement This ruling is a victory, not a 'setback,' for biological common sense. Twenty seven states now have similar bans as Tennessee. One might ask why the remaining 23 states are so far behind the curve toward sanity? Anthony Parks Advertisement Garden City The only disappointing thing about the SCOTUS gender decision is that it wasn't unanimous. It means that six Justices have common sense, and three don't. Nevertheless, a generation of young boys and girls have been saved from the 'gender-affirming' cultists. By the way, when did the far left change its mind on childhood genital mutilation? It seems like only yesterday the left was firmly against the practice for young girls in certain African countries. Advertisement Dennis Rhodes Naples, Fla. Since minors are considered to be too young to vote or serve in the military, then they are also too young to make these kinds of life-changing decisions. By the time they become adults, they may have changed their minds about all of these choices. Advertisement Ray Starman Albany Thanks to the Supreme Court for ruling against this idiotic ideology of 'gender affirmation.' It reaffirms what scripture tells us: Namely that the creator made two sexes, male and female, and no one should desecrate this. Frank Brady Yonkers The high court ruling to allow banning transgender care for minors is simply common sense. Sometimes kids go through phases. And life-changing decisions for minors could lead to regret and emotional and psychological struggles in later years. Advertisement My only hope is that other states will join the ban. Kids just need to be kids. They should not be allowed to make adult decisions. The legal age to drink is 21. The age to vote is 18 and to drive is 16. Waiting until the age of 18 for trans treatment is not asking too much. In fact, it's smart. Joann Lee Frank Clearwater, Fla. Advertisement The Issue: City Hall's plan to spend $929.1 million to house the homeless and migrants in hotels. Mayor Adams needs to go ('A Fetid $1B Hotel Deal,' Editorial, June 20). He cannot justify spending nearly $1 billion for this cause. How many of the 86,000 who need housing are actually homeless citizens, the ones he should have been taking care of from Day 1? That money could have been divided for other vital services that need to be addressed, such as cleaner streets, an overhaul of the Administration for Children's Services, more cops — because we really don't need more commuters to be stabbed during a Grand Central morning rush hour — or a number of other issues needing urgent attention and upgrades. Advertisement Susan Cienfuegos New Rochelle I really think that New York taxpayers and citizens have had enough of Eric Adams' nonsense. Along with the corruption allegations, he has continued to destroy New Yorkers' quality of life. Now he's planning to spend nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money on shelters for immigrants and homeless. Advertisement When is this gonna stop? Enough already, Adams. Gene O'Brien Whitestone Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.

Hamilton Spectator

4 hours ago

• Hamilton Spectator

What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .