Marlean Ames's civil rights case, focused on alleged heterosexual discrimination, reached the U.S. Supreme Court this week. The case could change discrimination claims for so-called ‘reverse discrimination’ under Title VII.
Reuters reported that Ames, a seasoned employee in Ohio's youth corrections system, faced changes in her employment conditions in 2019 that led her to believe she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation.
Before this event, Ames had consistently received promotions and positive evaluations, building a robust career within the system.
In 2019, her career trajectory took an unexpected downturn: a promotion she was considered eligible for went unexpectedly to a gay woman who had not even applied for the position.
Shortly thereafter, Ames was demoted, which meant a significant reduction in her income, amounting to a $40,000 annual cut.
Believing that her sexual orientation as a heterosexual woman was a factor in these employment decisions, Ames decided to seek legal redress. She filed a lawsuit challenging how evidence requirements in discrimination cases are weighed differently between majority and minority group members.
The legal process has not been favorable for Ames up to this point. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier dismissed her claims, citing a lack of "background circumstances" that would typically demonstrate discrimination against a member of a majority group.
This decision led Ames and her attorney, Edward Gilbert, known for his work on civil rights cases in Ohio, to escalate the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Their argument hinges on questioning the fairness of the current legal requirements that obligate plaintiffs from majority groups to present more substantial evidence when claiming discrimination.
The case has attracted attention from various conservative and Republican groups who see Ames's potential victory as a precedent-setting event that would expand the applicability of discrimination claims to include those by heterosexual, Caucasian, and male plaintiffs, typically seen as majority members.
Within this high-stakes legal context, Ames has maintained that her lawsuit is not borne out of animosity towards any group but rather a pursuit of equality in the legal process.
She states her case is poised to aid anyone who feels marginalized or unfairly treated, regardless of their group identity.
"Discrimination is discrimination," Ames asserted, underscoring her belief that all individuals should have equal footing in the eyes of the law.
Her lawyer, Gilbert, emphasizes this point in court, advocating for uniform evidence standards that do not vary based on the plaintiff's demographic or identity group.
William Corbett, an employment law professor at Louisiana State University, however, pointed out an irony in Ames's argument given that the initial standards for a prima facie case of discrimination were established in response to historical biases against certain groups, which did not include heterosexual Caucasians or males.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear the arguments on Wednesday, those following the case are pondering its possible ramifications on the landscape of civil rights and discrimination law in America.
Should Ames succeed, it might signal a significant shift in how discrimination cases are approached and proven in courts.
Moreover, the outcome of this high-profile case could potentially influence the dynamics within workplaces, prompting administrations to revisit their policies and practices around promotion and employment to ensure they are inclusive and equitable across all demographics.
The decision, expected later this year, will undoubtedly be a benchmark in the evolving discussion on what constitutes fair treatment under the law and how broadly protections against discrimination should be applied.