A straight woman in Ohio filed a discrimination lawsuit against her employer on the grounds of “reverse discrimination.” Specifically, that her employer—a gay woman—gave a homosexual man and woman higher positions over her despite being “less qualified.” The case is now being heard in the Supreme Court as Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.
Facts
According to the brief, in 2004, Marlean Ames began work with the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary. She was promoted to the role of program admin a decade later. In her argument, Ames claims that her supervisor, a gay woman, did not give Ames a higher position as a bureau chief due to her sexual orientation. Following this, Ames was demoted to her previous secretarial position with a pay cut. Shortly after, a gay man was hired to take over as the new program administrator—the position that Ames once previously held. A gay woman was then hired to take over as the new bureau chief that Ames had unsuccessfully gotten.
Ames filed suit against the Department. Her argument is that they discriminated against Ames on the basis of sexual orientation under federal employment law.
Relevant Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, or other protected characteristics such as religion and national origin. The law allows people of protected classes to file a lawsuit against their employers if they believe that they have been discriminated against.
Many courts apply what is called the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test. The name comes from the US Supreme Court case that created the framework, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.
Under this test, the Plaintiff—party who bring the lawsuit—must show that they have been discriminated against. In short, the evidence has to show:
1) The Plaintiff is a member of a protected class;
2) Plaintiff was qualified for and applied for a position;
3) Despite being qualified, Plaintiff was rejected for the job;
4) Defendant gave the position to an applicant who had the same or similar qualifications, but
was not in the Plaintiff’s protected class; and
5) That applicant was given better treatment.
Some federal courts require another step, which is called the “background circumstances rule.” This step requires the Plaintiff to show that the employer is “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.
Once Plaintiff meets their burden, or gives enough evidence of discrimination, the Defendant—party defending against the lawsuit—must give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.
If the court finds there to be a legit, nondiscriminatory reason, then the Plaintiff must show that the reason given was pretextual. Basically, that the reason for not hiring Plaintiff was a lie, and that the true reason was based on discrimination.
Importance of the Law
Both the law and McDonnell Douglas test are fundamental in discrimination cases. Since 1964, the law has been expanded to include other employment claims, including retaliation, wrongful firing, and failure to promote. It has also expanded to address other forms of discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of disability or age.
It goes without saying. Title VII provides an avenue for protected classes of people—minorities, LGBTQ members, elderly, and the disabled—to seek justice for discrimination. And the McDonnell Douglas test has acted as a proper balance to ensure that claims of discrimination are legitimate.
The Court’s Issue
The issue here lies with the (optional) extra step—the background circumstances rule. The rule places a burden on “majority plaintiffs”—that is, White people, straight men and women, and Americans. For those of the majority, they have to show that their employer has a pattern or reason to discriminate against the majority group.
Ames argues that the background circumstances rule conflicts with Title VII. It’s not equally applied by other federal courts; it’s difficult to apply; and it holds those in the majority to an unfair higher standard in proving discrimination.
Why It’s Important?
Amid a backdrop of the Trump administration dismantling DEI, this case holds far more importance than usual. Now removal of the “extra” background circumstances rule may not impact discrimination lawsuits all that much.
Ames has a valid argument that the rule imposes a greater burden on majority Plaintiffs by requiring them to show a pattern or tendency of the employer to discriminate. Getting rid of the background circumstances rule would make majority Plaintiffs equal to those of the protected class when it comes to proving discrimination.
But this could still pose an issue. One in which majority Plaintiffs—white, straight Americans—could claim discrimination against an employer who is not white and/or heterosexual themselves. While Plaintiffs would still have to meet the McDonnell Douglas test, we may see more discrimination
lawsuits from White, straight men and women if the rule is stricken. This could mean that people
could more easily claim discrimination in case where their employer is not White, straight, or even
American—even if the Plaintiff is not qualified for the position.
But the bigger problem is the slippery slope of overturning precedent. With a right-leaning, conservative Supreme Court, many worry that this case could overturn decades of precedent for discrimination in the workplace. We’ve seen the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and cease federal abortion protections. We’ve also seen the Court end affirmative action in higher education. Some argue that this case could upend workplace protections for minorities and the LGBTQ+.
The Court’s decision could affect how discrimination cases are handled moving forward.
