The Supreme Court case that could bring a 'flood of reverse discrimination claims'

25 February

Supreme Court 2022, Image via Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments Wednesday for an unusual reverse discrimination case that could open the door for similar claims. Marlean Ames, 60, filed a lawsuit claiming the department at the state agency where she worked was biased against straight people.

“Ames’s job discrimination lawsuit makes an unusual claim that could upend how many of the nation’s courts have handled such cases for decades,” write Justin Jouvenal and Taylor Telford at the Washington Post.

Ames was an administrator at the Ohio Department of Youth Services. But in 2019, she was replaced by a gay man and had her pay docked by more than $40,000. She was also passed over for a promotion that was given to a gay woman. She maintains that she was more qualified than these two colleagues. Her supervisor at the time was also gay. However, the supervisors who demoted her were straight.

"That's how I came to feel that I was being discriminated on because I was straight and pushed aside for them," Ames told Reuters.

Past rulings have made it harder for men, straight people and white people to make discrimination claims. Ames says this higher bar is unconstitutional.

A federal judge had dismissed the case because had not provided “background circumstances” showing the department was “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority," according to USA Today.

“If she wins, the flood of reverse discrimination claims will be like nothing we’ve ever seen,” Johnny C. Taylor Jr., chief executive of the human resources association SHRM, told the Washington Post. “Straight, white people everywhere could be filing.”

Some worry, Jouvenal and Telford write, that a ruling in Ames’ favor, paired with President Donald Trump’s attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion, could have a chilling effect on the program. Trump signed an executive order “ending the radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.”

Ames sees the case as a matter of inequality. “Little did I know at the time that I filed that my burden was going to be harsher than somebody else’s burden to prove my case,” she told the Washington Post. “I want people to try and understand that we’re trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just for a white woman in Ohio.”

America First Legal, a nonprofit founded by top Trump aide Stephen Miller, filed a brief supporting Ames. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a brief saying the court against her.

“Ames said in an interview she was never told she was being demoted or not promoted because she was straight,” Jouvenal and Telford write. “No one made derogatory comments about her sexual orientation, she said, and she was unaware of any other instances of alleged discrimination against straight people in the department.”

“Ames said she has no problems with gay people but alleged a ‘long-running scheme’ involving her direct supervisor, protégé and others ‘to kick her out’ because of her sexual orientation. She said in a deposition that she believes gay people ‘stick together,'” they write.

From Your Site Articles