Why this decision could remove additional hurdles for “reverse discrimination” claims in the workplace
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on a case that would have significant implications for employment discrimination claims—a case that started right here in Ohio.
Last month, the high court heard arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, an employment discrimination case involving alleged discrimination against a heterosexual woman on the basis of her sexual orientation. While the Court has yet to issue a ruling, based on the justices’ comments at oral argument, a decision siding with the employee seems likely, and the implications for other employees nationwide are significant.
This is an evolving area of law that we are monitoring closely. Here’s what you need to know about the case.
How Title VII employment discrimination claims work
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Since the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the prohibition on sex-based discrimination has also included sexual orientation and gender identity.
The text of the Civil Rights Act does not contain any delineation between “majority” and “minority” groups. The prohibition on racial discrimination, for example, applies equally to white employees and to members of racial minorities. Likewise, the prohibition on sex discrimination applies equally to men and women—and, since Bostock, to heterosexual and LGBTQ employees.
However, some federal courts—including the Sixth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Ohio—require additional proof to sustain a so-called “reverse discrimination” case. In those courts, when an employee who is a member of a majority group files a discrimination claim based on their membership in that majority group, they must make a showing of “background circumstances” such as a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.
Why Ames could mean the end of the “background circumstances” test
According to the Associated Press, the case currently before the Court was brought by Marlean Ames, an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services who alleges that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought to be promoted to and the job she was demoted from were given to LGBTQ people.
Ames did not present any evidence of “background circumstances,” and both the trial court and the Sixth Circuit ruled against her on that basis. Ames then appealed to the Supreme Court.
According to SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court appeared quite sympathetic to Ames’ cause at oral argument. “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes,” said Justice Kavanaugh, expressing a sentiment that appeared to enjoy broad sentiment among his colleagues, according to the Associated Press.
If the Supreme Court rules that the “background circumstances” test is not required in reverse discrimination cases, that ruling would be binding on every federal court in the country. That means the level of proof required in employment discrimination cases would be the same for members of majority and minority groups, no matter where in the country you are.
Our Ohio law firm stands up for victims of employment discrimination
Again, employment discrimination is an evolving area of law, and our attorneys take care to stay abreast of the latest developments.
If you believe you have been illegally discriminated against in the workplace, give us a call or contact us online for a free case evaluation with Gibson Law LLC. Our offices are located in Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio.
"Brad and his team were phenomenal in representing me in an employment issue. They were always responsive, even to minor questions. Brad took time to help me understand the process and the legal framework for my situation. I feel I had the best representation possible. I highly recommend Gibson Law." – Melissa S., ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐