The US supreme court made it easier on Thursday for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace “reverse discrimination”, reviving the case of an Ohio woman who claimed that she did not get a promotion at a state agency because she is heterosexual.
The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, threw out a lower court‘s decision rejecting a civil rights lawsuit by the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, against her employer, Ohio’s department of youth services.
The case was sent back to lower courts.
Ames argued that she was denied a promotion within the Ohio department of youth services because she is heterosexual. A lesbian was hired for the job instead, and Ames was eventually demoted to a lower position with lower pay, with a gay man taking her previous role.
The dispute centered on how plaintiffs like Ames must try to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex – including sexual orientation.
Some judges require that those in so-called reverse discrimination cases prove that an employer has a history of discriminating against a majority group, what are known as “background circumstances” that place a higher bar for those from a majority group trying to argue a discrimination case.
When the case appeared in front of the US circuit court of appeals, the judges initially rejected Ames’s claims, saying that she failed to demonstrate such background circumstances, and needed to show evidence that those within a minority group had made the discriminatory decisions. Those who were in charge of hiring and demoting Ames were also straight.
But the supreme court was willing to put this reasoning to a test, with an appetite to rethink what “reverse discrimination” actually means.
In a statement to NBC News, Xiao Wang, one of Ames’s lawyers, said that they were “pleased that this is the end of quite a long journey”.
“This was a major legal hurdle in front of her. This is something she is incredibly pleased about,” Wang said.
The case comes amid broad-based attacks from the federal government under the Trump administration’s campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion policies, or DEI, in American society, which has become a powerful flashpoint among conservatives in recent years.
After the supreme court ruled affirmative action in higher education unconstitutional in 2023, the conservative groups who advocated for the ruling set their sights on the workplace, vowing to end diversity measures set by employers. Over the last two years, dozens of cases that aim to dismantle DEI policies in the workplace have flooded courts around the country.
At the start of his second term, Donald Trump banned DEI within the federal government, firing hundreds of employees who the administration deemed had DEI roles throughout various departments and agencies and cutting major programs that promoted diversity. The administration has also targeted universities for federal funding cuts for having DEI programs.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is liberal-leaning, wrote for the court on Thursday morning: “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.”
In other words, the bar for discrimination against a historical majority group is not any higher than minority groups, which could make winning reverse discrimination cases in the future easier for future plaintiffs.
In an interview with the Washington Post earlier this year, Ames said that when she filed her discrimination claim, she did not know “that my burden was going to be harsher than somebody else’s burden to prove my case”.
“I want people to try and understand that we’re trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just for a white woman in Ohio.”
Reuters contributed reporting
