Supreme Court eyes lower bar for white, straight workers to sue for bias
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Marlene Ames claims that she was passed over for jobs because she is heterosexual. Photo: Maddie McGarvey/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
The Supreme Court seemed receptive to a woman's argument Wednesday she was discriminated against at work because she is heterosexual.
Why it matters: A ruling that allows the woman, Marlean Ames, to pursue the claim would open the door for men, white people, and heterosexual people to sue for job discrimination in the future.
- The court's receptivity to Ames' case comes as the Trump administration has purged DEI across the government, triggering legal fears for corporations, schools, and local governments across the country.
- Ames' case also comes in the shadow of the court's 2023 ruling that overturned the use of affirmative action in college admissions.
What they're saying: The court's conservative supermajority and at least a few of the liberal justices seemed open to hearing the case.
- "We are in radical agreement," Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said about the court's consensus that the same legal test should apply to all discrimination claims — including ones from straight, white, and male workers.
Zoom in: Ames was an employee at the Ohio Department of Youth Services who filed a job discrimination lawsuit in 2020 claiming that she was discriminated against in favor of gay co-workers.
- In one instance, she claims that she was removed from her job as an administrator in favor of a younger gay man.
- In another, she said she was unfairly passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman who was less qualified.
Context: Almost half of U.S. appeals courts require that members of majority groups (heterosexual, in this case) claiming discrimination meet an additional burden of proof that their employer is an "unusual" case of discrimination against majorities in what's known as the "background circumstances standard."
- Before Ames' suit went to trial, lower courts ruled against her, finding that she was unable to meet that standard. Ames argues that the standard is unconstitutional.
- Conservative legal groups, the Biden administration, and the Trump administration have all supported Ames' argument.
- Ashley Robertson, a lawyer for the Trump administration, said on Wednesday that the underlying appeals court's ruling was essentially, "Tell me your race, and I will tell you how much evidence you need to produce."
The other side: The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund argued in a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that different standards were appropriate for majority and minority groups because minorities are historically the target of discrimination.
