03-05-2025
Marlean Ames worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services. She claimed that the department passed over her for promotion and then demoted her because she was straight. The department denied the allegations. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex. In 2020, the Supreme Court determined that “sex” included sexual orientation. Some federal circuit courts have held that members of a majority group, like white people or heterosexuals, must carry a higher level of proof when suing for “reverse” discrimination. Thus, a plaintiff may need to show that LGBTQ individuals made the decisions or that there was a pattern of discrimination. The lower courts dismissed Ames’ case because she did not show a pattern of discrimination or “background circumstances” demonstrating bias. Both decisionmakers were straight.
U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue of whether a “majority-group plaintiff has to show something more than a minority-group plaintiff, here, whether a straight person has to show more than a gay person.” Based on the questions asked by the Justices, it seemed likely to rule that the burden of proof was the same. During oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicated that they believed discrimination based on sexual orientation was illegal whether you were gay or straight. The liberal justices mostly seemed inclined to agree.
Conservative groups have tried to seek a broader statement from the Court about efforts to diversify workplaces. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund argued that the Court should consider Title VII's history and purpose, which was focused on historically disadvantaged minorities. Justice Kavanagh said he envisioned “a really short opinion” that holds the rules for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are the same if you are gay or straight.