The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with an Ohio woman on Thursday who claimed she was discriminated against for being straight. She said her gay boss didn’t promote her. The ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services will now allow similar suits to be brought in the U.S., making it easier for members of majority groups to claim job discrimination over their identity.
Marlean Ames brought the case. Ames, a straight former Ohio Department of Youth Services (the state’s juvenile justice department) employee Ames alleged that she was denied a promotion and later removed from her position while less qualified queer employees were given the roles she sought.
At issue was whether so-called majority-group plaintiffs — such as heterosexual employees alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or white employees claiming they were discriminated against because of their race — must meet a higher evidentiary standard than other plaintiffs in discrimination cases.
That standard has been used in about half of the federal court circuits in the U.S., according to the New York Times.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court.
Jackson wrote that the court’s case law “makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. … The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle.”
“Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson also wrote in the opinion.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas — joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch — wrote that the higher standard was “judge-made.”
“Courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII’s anti-discrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs need not do so,” he wrote.
He added that the court’s decision Thursday, “obviates the need for courts to engage in the ‘sordid business'” of dividing people by their race or other identity.
The Human Rights Campaign in a statement emphasized the need for civil rights laws.
“Our civil rights laws must protect all people from unlawful discrimination—whether based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics,” said Cathryn Oakley, the organization’s senior director of legal policy. “Today’s unanimous decision, written by Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, emphasizes the ongoing importance of federal civil rights laws. It also comes as we’re witnessing an alarming wave of political attacks targeting LGBTQ+ people across the country, the weaponization of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and unprecedented hostility within parts of the federal government toward our community. LGBTQ+ people, in particular, face heightened and increasingly dangerous forms of discrimination — and too often, fewer paths to remedy it. This ruling must be understood in the context of that rising tide. Fighting discrimination is not just about one case or one person — it’s about defending the broader promise of equality and justice for all.”
Allen Morris, policy dreictor at the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the decision “underscores the need for congressional action, and the prioritization of federal non-discrimination protections.”
Morris also noted that the primary target of employment discrimination is still people “with intersecting needs.”
“This moment must also be met with clarity and urgency: underserved communities continue to face a systemically challenged and unleveled playing field in workspaces, schools and public life,” Morris said. “Nearly 1 in 2 transgender people report experiencing mistreatment in the workforce. We must not excuse or dismiss the lived realities of communities who are fighting to be treated with dignity and fairness. Congress must act to pass comprehensive, explicit federal non-discrimination protections, including the long-overdue Equality Act.”