Supreme Court Rules Unanimously in Favor of Ohio Woman in Discrimination Case

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling Thursday in favor of Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who alleged she was discriminated against in promotions at her workplace because she is heterosexual. The decision marks a significant moment for employment discrimination law, clarifying how members of so-called majority groups—such as heterosexuals or white employees—may seek recourse under federal civil rights statutes.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Court, rejected a prior ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that placed a higher burden of proof on "majority group" plaintiffs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The “background circumstances” rule had required individuals in majority groups to present special evidence suggesting an unusual scenario where the majority could experience discrimination. "Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard," Justice Jackson emphasized in her opinion, underscoring that the law prohibits discrimination for all protected classes and does not favor minorities over majorities when it comes to basic protections.

Marlean Ames, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, argued that she was repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of gay candidates. In 2019, she alleges she did not receive a promotion that was given instead to a lesbian colleague, and that a gay man later replaced her in her existing position. According to the ruling, Ames' qualifications and the sequence of adverse job actions would have met the initial threshold for a discrimination claim under traditional legal standards—if not for the Sixth Circuit’s since-overturned added rule.

The Court’s decision vacuates the lower court’s judgment and firmly strikes down the “background circumstances” requirement, bringing the treatment of majority and minority plaintiffs into clear alignment under the law. This move was hailed by legal analysts as a reaffirmation that employment discrimination protections are meant to be symmetrical—protecting all people equally regardless of majority or minority status in the workplace.

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not fully resolve Ames’ individual case. The justices made clear they were focusing solely on whether the heightened evidentiary standard was permissible. They left open for lower courts in Ohio to consider whether there were other legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons put forth by the state for the employment decisions involving Ames. "We leave it to the courts below to address any of Ohio’s remaining arguments on remand," Justice Jackson wrote.

The decision is expected to have broad implications for future workplace discrimination claims. By eliminating the requirement for majority-group plaintiffs to provide extra evidence, the ruling reinforces the principle that Title VII applies evenly—regardless of an employee’s race, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected class status. Employment lawyers say this clarification could reshape the way courts handle discrimination complaints from all sides, ensuring the law is applied in a fair and consistent manner across the country.