Supreme Court Rules Unanimously in Favor of Straight Ohio Woman in Discrimination Case
Supreme Court rules unanimously that Ohio woman’s workplace discrimination claim stands, affirming no higher standards for majority groups under Title VII.
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on Thursday, siding with Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who alleged that she faced discrimination when she was denied a job promotion in favor of LGBTQ+ candidates. The court's 9-0 ruling establishes that members of majority groups in protected classes are not required to meet a higher bar of evidence than minority group members to bring forward discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, delivering the opinion for the court, explicitly rejected the so-called "background circumstances" rule previously used by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This rule had called for certain plaintiffs—those from majority groups—to produce additional evidence specifically indicating that their employer might be inclined to discriminate against them. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard," Jackson wrote, signaling a clear shift in how lower courts must approach workplace bias claims moving forward.
The case centered on Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. Ames claimed that she was passed over for a promotion in 2019 in favor of a lesbian woman, and later replaced in her role by a gay man. Ames argued this treatment constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation—a class protected under Title VII following a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2020.
The Supreme Court clarified that all individuals, regardless of being part of a majority or minority group, are entitled to equal protection against workplace discrimination as outlined by federal law. The justices noted that Ames' level of evidence would typically satisfy the legal threshold necessary to proceed with her claim, stating that she was "qualified, had been denied a promotion in favor of a gay candidate, and was later demoted in favor of another gay candidate."
However, the Supreme Court stopped short of issuing a final judgment on whether Ames had, in fact, suffered unlawful discrimination. The justices highlighted that the State of Ohio had raised alternative defenses for its actions, which have yet to be considered by the lower courts. "We leave it to the courts below to address any of Ohio’s remaining arguments on remand," Justice Jackson explained in the written opinion.
This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future employment discrimination cases, ensuring uniform standards apply to all plaintiffs bringing forward claims under Title VII. Legal experts believe the decision could make it easier for workers, regardless of majority or minority status, to move forward with discrimination lawsuits across the United States.
