Unanimous Supreme Court sides with straight woman in ‘reverse discrimination’ case 

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with a straight Ohio woman who argued she was passed up for a promotion in favor of a gay candidate.

The case drew national attention as a so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuit – in which an individual of a “majority” group, such as a white or straight person, is discriminated against in favor of a member of a “minority” group. The lawsuit is expected to open the door to other legal challenges from employees who feel they have been unfairly targeted by diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

The Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision held that members of majority groups do not need to meet higher burdens of proof to show that they have been discriminated against, as several federal appeals courts had previously required. 

“The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs – those who are members of majority groups – to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who authored the court’s opinion, wrote. “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs.”

The case reached the court after Marlean Ames,  a heterosexual woman who was promoted within the Ohio Department of Youth Services for years, claimed she was discriminated against and denied promotions after being assigned to a gay supervisor.

The Sixth Circuit appeals court initially dismissed the case, as The Lion reported, since the court required “majority-group plaintiffs” to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Under the “background circumstances” requirement, Ames would need to take extra steps to prove a “pattern of discrimination” by the employer.

The Supreme Court noted that the “background circumstances” rule “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the court’s precedents.”

“Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” the decision reads.

While the Supreme Court’s decision struck down the “background circumstances” rule, it sent other legal arguments in the case down to the lower courts for further review.

“We granted review to consider the validity of the ‘background circumstances’ rule, and we reject that rule for the reasons set forth above,” Jackson wrote. “We leave it to the courts below to address any of Ohio’s remaining arguments on remand.”

America First Legal, which submitted an amicus brief in the case, called the lawsuit a “landmark civil rights case” and praised the Supreme Court for rejecting the appellate court’s “inherently discriminatory standard.”

“The Supreme Court unanimously held that discrimination is discrimination, independent of contextual factors that stretch the plain meaning of Title VII,” America First Legal Vice President Dan Epstein said.

America First Legal senior counsel Nick Barry noted that nothing in Title VII’s text supported the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule.

The Supreme Court’s correction of the lower court, he added, should “serve as a clear call for conservative litigators to continue to press for the rule of law.”