The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case that could reshape how discrimination claims are handled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. At issue is whether majority-group plaintiffs, like heterosexual employees alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation or white employees claiming racial discrimination, must meet a higher evidentiary standard than others.
Marlean Ames, a former Ohio Department of Youth Services employee, argues she was denied a promotion and removed from her position while less-qualified queer employees were given the roles she sought. Her case was dismissed under the Sixth Circuit’s heightened standard, which requires majority-group plaintiffs to demonstrate “background circumstances” to establish a claim. Justice Elena Kagan sharply criticized this rule, pointing out that Ames would not have faced this extra burden if she were gay. Kagan said,
“Because Ames is heterosexual, she must make a showing in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case”
She asked if this meant unequal treatment? Ames’s attorney, Xiao Wang, argued the rule contradicts Title VII’s goal of eradicating workplace discrimination. He stressed that sorting individuals into majority and minority groups perpetuates bias, rather than eliminating it. The case has significant implications. If the Supreme Court sides with Ames, it could eliminate the background circumstances rule, making it easier for all employees to seek justice under Title VII. The ruling could have dramatic effects on discrimination claims against minority classes of people, especially people of color and LGBTQ. A ruling is expected by June.
