COLUMBUS, Ohio (Diya TV) — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision this week that reshapes how reverse discrimination cases are handled, siding with a white woman who claimed she was denied a promotion because of her race and sexual orientation in favor of less qualified gay colleagues.
The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, centered on Marlean Ames, a long-serving employee at the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS). After ten years on the job, including a leadership role in a program aimed at preventing prison rape, Ames applied for a promotion in 2019. Despite her experience and qualifications, ODYS rejected her application, citing a lack of vision and leadership skills.
According to The New York Times, the position instead went to a gay woman who had no college degree and less seniority. Ames was later removed from her role, offered a demotion with a significant pay cut, and replaced by a gay man with even less experience. In response, Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she faced discrimination based on her sex, pointing to the Court’s 2020 ruling that sex discrimination includes sexual orientation.
Lower courts dismissed Ames’ claim using a “heightened standard,” a judicial test requiring plaintiffs from majority groups to provide not only typical evidence of discrimination but also prove the employer had a particular predisposition to discriminate against them. The Supreme Court flatly rejected that approach.
Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of majority or minority status. “Nothing in the statute’s text supports imposing a higher burden on certain plaintiffs,” she wrote. The Court concluded that the same legal standards must apply across the board in workplace discrimination cases.
CNN’s Paula Reid called it “a unanimous opinion that will make it easier to file so-called reverse discrimination claims in the U.S.”
The ruling removes a major procedural hurdle that had made it more difficult for white, straight, or male plaintiffs to bring discrimination cases. It’s expected to have a wide impact on employment law moving forward by eliminating the two-tier system created by some lower courts.
The Biden administration supported Ames in the case, filing a legal brief urging the justices to eliminate the heightened standard. Conservative legal groups also rallied behind her, while organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and the National Association of Counties sided with Ohio.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, raised concerns about the broader framework used in employment discrimination cases, specifically, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework established in 1973. Thomas argued that this approach may now be outdated and “obfuscates rather than clarifies” how discrimination cases should be judged. He called for a reexamination of how courts interpret employment protections, warning that judge-made rules often twist the original intent of the law.
The ruling comes at a time when the Supreme Court is increasingly in the spotlight. In another high-profile decision, the Court recently blocked a legal request from former President Donald Trump, highlighting ongoing tensions between the judicial branch and political factions in Congress.
The Ames decision sends a strong message: anti-discrimination laws must be applied evenly, regardless of the plaintiff’s identity. By removing an unequal legal standard, the Court has opened the door for a fairer and straightforward resolution of workplace discrimination claims under Title VII.
