High Court appears to favor Ohio woman’s job bias claim

In a session held on Wednesday, the Supreme Court appeared inclined to support a woman from Ohio who asserts she faced sex discrimination from her employer because of her heterosexual orientation.
The case’s resolution could potentially eliminate an additional legal requirement that some courts currently impose when individuals who belong to majority groups, such as white or heterosexual individuals, file discrimination lawsuits under federal law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out a solution to the case with an approach that seemed to resonate with his fellow justices.
“Discrimination based on sexual orientation, irrespective of being gay or straight, is forbidden. The same rules apply in either direction,” Kavanaugh remarked.
The justices were reviewing an appeal from Marlean Ames, an employee with the Ohio Department of Youth Services, who has been with the organization for over two decades.
Ames argues that she faced career setbacks, including being overlooked for a promotion and subsequent demotion, due to her heterosexuality. The positions she pursued, as well as ones she previously held, were allocated to LGBTQ individuals.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title VII prohibits sex-based workplace discrimination. Ames’s lower court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had originally ruled against her.
The Supreme Court is examining whether the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit and various other appeals courts, addressing legal matters for 20 states and the District of Columbia, have imposed an unreasonable standard on discrimination suits from majority group members. Those filing such lawsuits need to demonstrate “background circumstances,” indicating, for instance, that decision-makers were LGBTQ or evidence of a discriminatory pattern against majority group members.
The appeals court found a lack of such evidence in Ames’s claim.
Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser stated before the justices that the decision-makers in question were unaware of Ames’s sexual orientation.
Nevertheless, Gaiser did not oppose the seemingly probable outcome, which emphasized equitable treatment. “Everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally,” Gaiser asserted.
Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the agreement, noting, “We’re in radical agreement on that today.”
Conservative groups, including America First Legal, submitted briefs arguing that majority group members might also face, or even exceed encountering, job discrimination, attributing this to policies promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Former President Donald Trump had previously ordered a cessation of DEI initiatives within federal operations and moved to discontinue governmental support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of these anti-DEI moves from the new administration have encountered temporary rebuttals in federal court.
In briefs filed by lawyers from America First, established by Trump aide Stephen Miller, they expressed skepticism towards the notion that discrimination against majority group members is infrequent amid today’s focus on ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ hiring practices.
However, during Wednesday’s session, the justices did not address topics related to DEI.