Supreme Court rules for straight woman in reverse discrimination case

Heterosexual employees who claim discrimination shouldn’t have to meet a higher burden than others just because they aren’t part of a minority group, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.

The court said federal civil rights employment laws focus on individuals, not groups, and plaintiffs who aren’t minorities can’t be required to show extra “background circumstances” to prove their case.

“By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court.

The ruling overturned a lower appeals court’s decision that majority group plaintiffs must prove more than minority group plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Keith Wilkes, a labor lawyer at Hall Estill, a firm in Oklahoma, said the ruling will help “people who are White, male or not gay” prove “reverse discrimination cases.”

“This decision makes sense. Discrimination is discrimination,” he said.

The case arose out of Ohio, where Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, sought a promotion to bureau chief.

She said she was interviewed by a group of supervisors, one of whom was gay, and she didn’t get the job. Instead, it was filled by a lesbian with less experience.

Ms. Ames was told she must either take a demotion or quit. She chose the demotion and was later replaced by a gay man.

Ms. Ames said she was punished for her sexual orientation in a violation of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin or sex.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her claim.

It held that plaintiffs who are not part of a minority group must take an extra step to prove an employer’s discrimination. The 6th Circuit ruled that Ms. Ames failed to make that case.

Justice Jackson, a Biden appointee, said nothing in the law or Supreme Court precedent justifies that extra test.

She said the court made that finding when it rejected employers’ claims that discrimination against White people didn’t trigger the Civil Rights Act.

“Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,” she wrote.

Mr. Wilkes said about half the country’s appeals courts had similar higher-burden standards for majority group members to prove discrimination.

He said the unanimous decision, led by the court’s Black female member, undercuts those claims.

President Trump has been battling to unravel government diversity, equity and inclusion policies, which he says are divisive and contribute to waste.

Anti-DEI groups vowed to use the Supreme Court ruling.

Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, flagged the decision on social media. “All Corporations with openly discriminatory DEI programs/initiatives … better preserve those documents,” he said.

Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said the ruling corrects a tendency in some lower courts to treat “reverse discrimination” claims differently.

“It’s heartening to see a unanimous Supreme Court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing, make clear that the law here is plain, and equality means everybody,” Mr. Olson said.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who agreed with the court’s decision, complained about the 6th Circuit’s ruling.

“Atextual, judge-created legal rules have a tendency to generate complexity, confusion and erroneous results,” he said.

Ohio said Ms. Ames’ case would fail for reasons beyond the “background circumstances” requirement. Justice Jackson said the high court didn’t need to address that now and left it for lower courts to argue.

The case is Marlean Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.