Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Supreme Court Sides With Straight Woman In Reverse Discrimination Case

Supreme Court allows Ohio woman to move forward with 'reverse' discrimination suit, The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of an Ohio woman in her bid to revive a lawsuit alleging she was passed over for a job due to her heterosexual orientation.

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of an Ohio woman who wants to bring an employment discrimination claim against the state, alleging she was passed over for a job on the basis of her heterosexual orientation.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion.

The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, alleges her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, denied her a promotion and later demoted her, in both cases selecting gay candidates instead who were less qualified. Her supervisor at the time was also gay.

Ames had worked for the Department for more than 15 years and received sterling performance reviews.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientati

Justice Jackson, writing for the court, said that Ames had been unfairly held to a higher legal standard as a member of a majority group.

"The question in this case is whether, to satisfy that prima facie burden, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,'" Jackson wrote, quoting the decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand for application of the proper prima facie standard."

The ruling means Ames' lawsuit can move forward, but it does not necessarily mean she will succeed in her case against her former employer.

by Anonymousreply 1June 9, 2025 4:47 AM

We already know. Perhaps you should check the internet instead of relying on the telegraph. God, you’re such a major asshole!

by Anonymousreply 1June 9, 2025 4:47 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!