Marlean Ames had enjoyed a successful career in Ohio’s youth corrections system, receiving numerous promotions and positive evaluations. However, in 2019, she was denied a promotion and demoted, resulting in a $40,000 pay cut. Ames, who felt “shocked, hurt, and humiliated,” believed the decision was based on her sexual orientation. She claimed that her gay supervisor passed over her for a promotion in favor of a less qualified gay woman and later demoted her in favor of a less qualified gay man.
Ames, 60, said in an interview, “That’s how I came to feel that I was being discriminated against because I was straight and pushed aside for them.” Her case is now set to be heard by the US Supreme Court next Wednesday, as she seeks to revive her civil rights lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services after lower courts dismissed it. She is seeking monetary damages from the state.
A favorable ruling for Ames by the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, could make it easier for non-minorities, including white people and heterosexuals, to pursue claims of illegal bias, often referred to as “reverse” discrimination, under the landmark federal anti-discrimination law.
The case centers on the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex, including sexual orientation. Ames is challenging a legal requirement used by some US courts that plaintiffs from majority groups, such as white and straight people, must provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to establish a “prima facie” case of discrimination. This requirement stems from a 1973 Supreme Court ruling that governs the multi-step process for resolving such cases.
Courts like the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Ames, require majority-group plaintiffs to show “background circumstances” indicating that a defendant is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The 6th Circuit concluded that Ames could not meet this threshold, leading to the dismissal of her case.
Ames argued, “Discrimination is discrimination. This case will hopefully help anyone who feels they’ve been discriminated against to get a fair shake in the courtroom, without having to go through what I had to.”
However, civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, warned the Supreme Court in legal filings that Ames’s interpretation of Title VII could ignore the realities of persistent discrimination against minority groups. They argued that the “background circumstances” inquiry acknowledges the historical and ongoing discrimination against certain minority groups, such as Black and LGBTQ people, which is not typically seen against majority groups like white people and straight people.
Reverse discrimination lawsuits are on the rise in the United States, fueled by conservative and Republican backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Republican President Donald Trump, on his first day back in office, ordered the dismantling of such policies in federal agencies and encouraged private companies to follow suit. Conservative groups, including America First Legal, which has filed numerous claims of anti-white and anti-male bias, have urged the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Ames.
Louisiana State University employment law professor William Corbett suggested that an Ames victory could be seen as a victory for those who believe reverse discrimination is prevalent, potentially putting reverse and traditional discrimination claims on equal footing. Before leaving office, Democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration filed a brief supporting Ames. Ohio lawyer Edward Gilbert, known for representing minority clients in civil rights cases, agreed to handle her case. Gilbert argued that the “background circumstances” rule is unfair, regardless of the plaintiff’s background, and that evidence requirements should be equal across the board.
The office of Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost defended the employment actions involving Ames as part of a Department of Youth Services restructuring. Yost’s office argued that the “background circumstances” requirement did not place a higher burden on Ames, as the specific facts giving rise to a suspicion of discrimination vary from case to case.
Ames began working in Ohio’s juvenile corrections system in 2004 and was promoted in 2014 to oversee a program aimed at preventing sexual abuse in its facilities. In 2019, she interviewed for a newly created “bureau chief” position but was not offered the job, which was filled by a gay woman who had not applied. Around the same time, Ames was demoted to her previous secretarial role, resulting in an annual pay cut from $100,000 to $60,000. A gay man was selected to replace her.
Department leaders claimed Ames lacked the vision and leadership skills needed for the new position, according to court
Read more:
