In a unanimous (9-0) ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Title VII specifically (and the Equal Protection Clause, generally) deems reverse discrimination in American society to be just as odious and intolerable as traditional discrimination.
This holding is not only important because it again enshrines fundamental fairness and equality in our law, but it also prevents similar future cases of reverse discrimination from having to be proven based upon a higher legal standard because the claimant (like here) is a member of a so-called “majority” group (i.e. heterosexual).
This case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, involves a heterosexual (straight) woman who claimed she had been discriminated against on that basis.
Let’s unpack this.
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that “Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various roles since 2004. In 2019, the agency interviewed Ames for a new management position but ultimately hired another candidate—a lesbian woman. The agency subsequently demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator and later hired a gay man to fill that role. Ames then filed this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her (heterosexual) sexual orientation.”
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, because of her “background circumstances,” Miss Ames, a member of a “majority” group (heterosexual) was required by the district and appeal courts to show additional evidence of discrimination to prove her case.
Not anymore.
The Supreme Court ruled that this heterosexual woman could not be discriminated against regarding job promotions in favor of gay candidates. However, in addition to prohibiting this straight v. gay discrimination, the Court also ruled that members of “majority” groups do not need to meet a higher standard of proof—i.e., based upon their “background circumstances” in order to prove they have been discriminated against. Now, Americans who fall into a “majority” class only have to meet the typical burden of proof that they have suffered discrimination.
Hence, the Court found that Miss Ames was discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation after she was passed over for one promotion and demoted from another position. The Court determined that “Ames was qualified, had been denied a promotion in favor of a gay candidate, and was later demoted in favor of another gay candidate.”
The Court stated:
“The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs—those who are members of majority groups—to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard,” Justice Ketanji Jackson wrote. “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment is vacated.”
This is an important ruling.
In short, what the Supreme Court decided is that a member of a “majority group” (in this case, a heterosexual) does not have to present any more evidence to prove they have been discriminated against than would an individual alleging discrimination who is a member of a so-called “minority group,” such as gay, lesbian or black. The Court observed that requiring Ames to show “background circumstances … that the employer was hostile to straight people—wouldn’t have been required had a gay employee claimed discrimination.”
Going forward, if there is discriminatory treatment of an employee it won’t matter if the employee alleging discrimination is white, heterosexual, lesbian, gay, or anything else. They will be held to the very same legal standard in proving discrimination.
The Heritage Foundation noted:
“The Supreme Court properly ruled today that there is not a higher standard of proof for someone asserting that they were discriminated against depending on whether they are gay or heterosexual. The idea that there should be different standards for different individuals based on their race or sexual orientation is repugnant and a clear violation of federal civil rights laws that protect everyone.(H. v. Spakovsky)
This decision is consistent with the Court’s ending the use of race in college admissions and the dismantling of DEI programs. Chief Justice John Roberts has written, lamenting in a 2006 case involving the issue of race in legislative redistricting, “it is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” This decision—although involving the issue of sex—and others like it have gone a long way toward achieving the golden ideal of genuine equality in our country.