The US Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case involving alleged discrimination against a heterosexual woman. Marlean Ames, who worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over 20 years, claims she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because of her sexual orientation. Ames argues that the positions were instead given to gay colleagues.
Ames’s lawsuit accuses Ohio state officials of discriminating against her based on her heterosexuality. However, the state denies any wrongdoing, and lower courts have so far ruled against her.
In a hearing on Wednesday, the justices appeared divided on the case, with conservative and liberal members showing some sympathy towards Ames. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace discrimination, and in 2020, the Supreme Court extended these protections to sexual orientation. Despite this, lower courts dismissed Ames’s claim, citing that she had not provided enough evidence to prove her case.
The legal standard for claims of discrimination involving majority groups, such as heterosexuals or white people, is higher. Plaintiffs must show additional evidence, such as a pattern of discrimination or a direct link to decisions made by members of minority groups, to prove their case.
Ames’s lawsuit states that in 2019, she and two other heterosexual employees were denied a promotion, which was eventually awarded to a lesbian colleague. Later, she was demoted, and her position was filled by a gay man. Despite positive performance reviews, Ames argues that these decisions were motivated by discrimination.
Lower courts ruled that Ames did not demonstrate a clear pattern of discrimination. The courts also accepted the state’s claim that the managers had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions.
During the Supreme Court hearing, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that discrimination, whether against gay or straight individuals, is prohibited by law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also supported this view, stating that the legal standards should be the same regardless of sexual orientation.
Several liberal justices also expressed concern about the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that there were suspicious circumstances that could indicate discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that allowing Ames’s case to proceed might be a wise decision.
Ohio’s Solicitor General, T. Elliot Gaiser, representing the state, argued that the decision-makers in Ames’s case did not know her sexual orientation and therefore could not have used it as a basis for discrimination. He also claimed that the department managers, who were themselves heterosexual, had valid concerns about Ames’s approach to the department’s direction.
The Supreme Court could decide to send the case back to lower courts for further consideration, allowing the lawsuit to continue.
Read more: