Supreme Court sides with straight woman in Ohio 'reverse discrimination' case
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed on June 5 that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay.
The unanimous decision, which landed amid a national backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion programs, could trigger a wave of 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits.
The justices rejected a lower court's ruling that Marlean Ames could not sue the Ohio Department of Youth Services because she'd failed to provide 'background circumstances' showing the department was 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.'
That's a test created in 1981 by a federal appeals court used by some, but not most, of the federal courts when assessing claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in 1981 that while white people are covered by the Civil Rights Act, it defied common sense 'to suggest that the promotion of a black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.'
But the law itself, which bans discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, sex or national origin,' doesn't set different thresholds for members of minority and majority groups.
Ames' lawyers told the justices her suit would not have been dismissed at this stage of the litigation had she been gay and the employees who got the jobs she wanted were straight.
During the court's discussion of the case in February, Ohio's solicitor general did not defend the 'exact language' the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used when rejecting Ames' suit over insufficient 'background circumstances.' But T. Elliot Gaiser, the solicitor general, argued that Ames still failed to show enough evidence that her sexual orientation played any role in the hiring decisions she questioned.
Ames twice lost jobs at the Ohio Department of Youth Services to other candidates she thought were less qualified, both of whom were gay.
The department said she was passed over for a promotion because she lacked the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she happened to be straight.
Officials said she was then demoted from her administrator position because she wouldn't bring a proactive approach to the department's increased emphasis on combatting sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system.
The Supreme Court's decision in Amex v. Ohio Department of Youth Services doesn't settle Ames' discrimination claim but only revives it for additional court proceedings.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court sides with straight woman claiming job discrimination in Ohio
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge's ruling blocking President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all. The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops. 'Those are maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,' Judge Eric Miller, one of Trump appointees on the panel, told California's lawyer. 'But they've told us repeatedly that when there is a case that is directly applicable to an issue, even if we think it's been undercut by later developments…we're supposed to follow the applicable case and leave it to them to overrule it,' Miller added. The judges repeatedly stressed an 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, that gives the president exclusive authority to decide whether an exigency justifying the use of military power has arisen. Samuel Harbourt, California's attorney, insisted 'it was a very different case.' 'If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,' Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. 'But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you're making.' Judge Mark Bennett, the other Trump appointee, questioned whether the courts could intervene in the Los Angeles deployment even if there was some limited role for judicial review. 'With the facts here and the language in Martin v. Mott, how can that test be met here?' he asked. Trump deployed the National Guard over a week ago as protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's immigration raids, devolving at times into violence. He cited a statute that allows the guard to be federalized when there is a rebellion or when the president can't execute federal law with regular forces. Tuesday's arguments followed a district judge's order directing Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, called Trump's takeover illegal and said it exceeded the scope of the statute. The Justice Department appealed the ruling within minutes of its release, and the 9th Circuit panel granted the government's request to temporarily halt the ruling as its request for a longer pause is considered. Brett Shumate, who represented the government at Tuesday's arguments, said Breyer 'improperly second-guessed' Trump's judgment about the need to call up the guard, interfering with his commander-in-chief powers. 'It upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the President's military orders. It puts article three judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,' Shumate said. California also argues that regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute's mandate to issue his order 'through' the state's governor. California says that requires Newsom to consent, which he did not. But at least some of the judges appeared skeptical of that argument, too. 'It's a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,' said Miller. The appeals court could now rule at any time. Before adjourning, the panel noted Breyer is moving quickly to a Friday hearing on whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal. And if the administration loses, they asked for the deployment to remain intact until they have an opportunity to file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. Updated on June 18 at 5:58 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Gardeners reportedly taken by ICE agents while mowing outside California home
Neighbors are concerned after a Southern California man said his two gardeners were reportedly taken by federal immigration agents as they were working outside his home. On Thursday morning, Christopher Ames said his gardeners were mowing the lawn outside his house in Ontario, Calif. His neighbors, who had witnessed the men being taken into custody, quickly alerted him to the incident. 'They left the lawnmower running right here on the front lawn,' Ames said. 'They threw my gardeners' phones in their [work truck], along with the car keys, left everything open and just took off.' Neighbors who learned of the arrests said they were a bit stunned. 'I just think that's wrong,' Ames told Nexstar's KTLA. 'This is not the way we treat people, and this is not the way this country should be acting.' The reported incident comes amid mass Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids across the region as protests have roiled Los Angeles this month. Around 200 Marines have been deployed to the city and over 2,000 California National Guard troops are also on the ground amid the unrest. At least 330 immigrants have been arrested since the raids began, according to the White House. Late Thursday night, one of the gardeners' family members, a man named Luis, arrived at the Ontario house to drive the work truck back home. Luis said the two men were reportedly taken by agents with ICE, and they have not been able to contact them. 'They were my family, and we're living in fear,' he said. A neighbor named Rose said she watched the arrests from her home across the street. 'I understand people are just doing their jobs and people are here illegally,' she said. 'I get the entire picture. But to be scooped up in such a way, I just hope that they had the opportunity to reach out to their families.' With the men's cellphones left behind, Rose said she is concerned they would have no way to contact loved ones to let them know of their detainment, leaving them in distress. 'As a mom and a wife, if I'm expecting someone to come home and they don't come home and I have no way of reaching them or finding them, that's the scary part,' she said. Family members said they have no idea where the two men might be held and are hoping to contact them soon. Although authorities did not comment on the gardeners' specific case, the Ontario Police Department confirmed to KTLA that ICE agents had conducted operations in Ontario Thursday morning. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
