The US Supreme Court is preparing to hear a highly controversial case involving Marlean Ames, a 60-year-old straight woman from Ohio who claims she was denied a promotion because she wasn’t gay.
Ames filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleging that her sexual orientation played a role in both her career setback and subsequent demotion.
Details of the Case and Ames’ Claims
Ames began working with the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 and was appointed the Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2014.
In 2017, she was given a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is openly gay.
After a few years under her new leadership, Ames applied for the Bureau Chief of Quality position in 2019, only to be passed over in favor of a gay candidate, Yolanda Frierson.
Ames alleges that after this rejection, Trim encouraged her to retire and offered congratulations for her 30 years of service.
The following month, Ames was removed from her position as PREA Administrator and reassigned to a lower role with a $40,000 pay cut.
Ames believes that she was unfairly replaced by Alexander Stojsavljevic, a gay man, who took over her former role despite being less qualified than she was.
In an interview with Reuters, Ames expressed that she felt discriminated against due to her sexuality, claiming that her qualifications were overlooked in favor of less qualified candidates.
Legal Journey and Challenges
Ames filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and later sued the Department of Youth Services, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on factors like sex, race, color, and religion.
However, her case was dismissed by both the US District Court and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The judges ruled that Ames failed to provide sufficient evidence that the department engaged in discriminatory practices against the majority, in this case, straight individuals.
The “background circumstances” requirement, which judges referred to in dismissing Ames’ case, is a legal framework that asks plaintiffs to provide evidence of a pattern of discrimination by the employer.
This rule, which was established in the 1980s, imposes a higher burden on plaintiffs from majority groups when bringing reverse discrimination claims.
The Supreme Court’s Involvement and What’s at Stake
The case will now be reviewed by the US Supreme Court, where Ames and her lawyer, Edward Gilbert, will argue that her lawsuit should be reopened.
Ames is also seeking monetary damages from the state of Ohio.
If the Supreme Court rules in her favor, the decision could set a precedent that would make it easier for individuals from majority groups to bring discrimination complaints under Title VII.
Ames hopes that her case will help others who feel they’ve faced discrimination based on their identity, ensuring they have the opportunity to present their case fairly in court.
Opposing Views and Legal Criticism
However, there are critics who argue against Ames’ interpretation of Title VII.
Civil rights organizations, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, have argued that Ames is attempting to change the legal understanding of discrimination, potentially undermining efforts to address systemic bias against minority groups.
There are also concerns that ruling in Ames’ favor could open the floodgates for lawsuits, as other majority group plaintiffs might attempt to challenge policies designed to address disparities in employment.
A filing from local government organizations warns that such a ruling could create a slippery slope, making it more difficult for employers to defend themselves against discrimination claims.
The Bigger Picture and National Debates on Diversity
The case comes at a time when debates over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices have become more polarized.
In recent years, there has been a rise in lawsuits alleging “reverse” discrimination, particularly under the administrations of both former President Donald Trump and the current political climate.
Under Trump’s executive orders, DEI policies in federal agencies were rolled back, and significant funding cuts were made to DEI-related programs.
This has led to greater attention on the issue of discrimination against majority groups, with conservative groups like America First Legal filing numerous legal challenges related to anti-white and anti-male bias.
What to Expect Moving Forward
Experts, including William Corbett, a professor of employment law at Louisiana State University, believe that if the Supreme Court sides with Ames, it could result in a significant shift in how discrimination claims are handled.
The case is expected to be decided by June 2025, and its outcome could have major implications for the future of workplace discrimination laws in the United States.