Highest Court Restores Discrimination Accusation for Heterosexual Female
In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court has stood by Marlean Ames, a woman who accused her employer of discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation. Ames' case marks a significant shift in the legal landscape, potentially making it simpler for people from majority groups to pursue claims of "reverse discrimination."
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down the "background circumstances" test, a precedent that required majority-group plaintiffs to offer extra evidence to support claims of reverse discrimination. This ruling signals that such plaintiffs will no longer be held to a higher evidentiary standard based solely on their status.
Ames, a long-time employee at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, had faced hurdles in her career after being demoted following a lesbian colleague's promotion. She asserts that this demotion was a result of discrimination, an allegation that was contested by the agency, which insisted that the actions were taken as part of a broader restructuring effort.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned the opinion, arguing that the "background circumstances" test lacked any basis in Title VII or the Court's existing interpretations. This means Ames' case will be revisited by lower courts, edging closer to a possible trial or settlement.
Xiao Wang, one of Ames' attorneys, expressed his satisfaction with the ruling, stating, "We're of course pleased that this is the end of quite a long journey for Ms. Ames. This was a major legal hurdle in front of her. This is something she is incredibly pleased about."
The significance of this ruling isn't lost amid the ongoing debates surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Critics argue that the decision could embolden those who claim to face racial discrimination within the majority group.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, cited an amicus brief filed by America First Legal, a group associated with former President Trump. Thomas' opinion highlighted alleged discrimination against "majority group members" by "large and prestigious companies."
The impact of this ruling extends to the 20 states and the District of Columbia that follow federal courts of appeals that previously applied the "background circumstances" standard. This change could trigger a wave of litigation and scrutiny in the realm of employment discrimination cases within these jurisdictions.
Despite these implications, advocates for historically marginalized groups contend that the decision doesn't compromise existing civil rights protections. Instead, it affirms the applicability of discrimination laws for all groups, preserving the balance of protections under Title VII.
The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the "background circumstances" test could have implications for 'workplace-wellness' and 'health-and-wellness', as it may encourage more claims of reverse discrimination in workplaces.
This ruling, which follows from the case of Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, could also influence the broader 'political' landscape, with potential ramifications for debates on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
