Supreme Court rocks workplace law as Ohio woman’s win makes reverse bias suits easier
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday to streamline the process for filing lawsuits concerning alleged reverse discrimination, supporting an Ohio woman who claims she was denied a job and subsequently demoted due to her heterosexuality.
This ruling impacts lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia, where, until now, courts had set a higher standard for members of a majority group, including white and heterosexual individuals, suing for discrimination under federal law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that federal civil rights law does not distinguish between members of majority and minority groups.
- Woman who died for 11 minutes shares chilling warning
- Mom shoots child molester she found trying to rape her daughter in hotel room
Jackson wrote: "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,".
The court made its decision in response to an appeal from Marlean Ames, who the Ohio Department of Youth Services has employed for over two decades.
Don't miss...
Amber Riley responds to comments saying she won The Masked Singer due to DEI
Greg Gutfeld blames inflation on DEI in Fox News rant
Target faces 40-day boycotts over DEI policies
Ames alleges that she was overlooked for a promotion and then demoted because of her heterosexuality. Both the position she applied for and the one she previously held were awarded to LGBTQ individuals.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sex in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled against Ames.
The 6th Circuit was one of the courts that imposed an extra burden on individuals like Ames, demanding proof of "background circumstances," which could entail evidence that LGBTQ individuals influenced decisions regarding Ames or statistical data indicating a trend of discrimination against majority group members.
The appellate court observed that Ames failed to present any such background circumstances.
However, Jackson pointed out that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
