Dem
47
GOP
53
Marlean Ames is a straight white woman who worked for the state of Ohio for 30 years, receiving solid job reviews and salary increases along the way. She was an administrator in an Ohio state agency overseeing juvenile prisons and no one complained about the quality of her work. In 2017, she began reporting to a gay woman, Ginine Trim, who demoted her, gave her a $40,000 pay cut, and replaced her with a young gay man Ames claims was unqualified for the job. Then Ames applied for a management position and was turned down. It remained open for several months and was eventually filled by a gay woman who didn't even apply for it. Ames then sued, claiming the state was discriminating against straight people. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral hearings on the case. If she wins, this could upend years of practice concerning employment discrimination.
The case is complicated because any one (or more than one) of the following could be true:
The last two are definitely illegal. The second might be illegal—this is what the case is about. The first one would definitely be legal.
The core issue in the case is a judicial precedent that requires members of majority groups to jump over a higher bar than members of minority groups when claiming discrimination. Ames' lawyer is claiming that forcing white people or straight people to provide more proof of discrimination than Black people or gay people is itself discriminatory and thus forbidden by the Fourteen Amendment.
Ames' demotion was defended by the Ohio solicitor general, T. Elliot Gaiser. Both the conservative and liberal justices peppered Gaiser with questions forcing him to try to defend the different standards. In the end, he had to admit that members of majority groups and minority groups should be treated equally. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that Ames' years of experience with only positive performance reviews suggested that something was amiss with her getting passed over for a promotion.
From the questioning, the ruling could ultimately be 9-0 for Ames and against Ohio. If that happens, the case will be sent back to the lower court to be reheard using a new standard not requiring Ames to provide as much proof as in Round 1.
If the Court rules for Ames, it might affect many workplace discrimination cases going forward. In particular, it could enable white people to sue in a workplace where DEI was in effect and a minority candidate was selected above a white candidate. Similarly, if a company promotes a gay person over a more experienced straight person, the straight person would then have a stronger case in court. Although race was not an issue here, Chief Justice John Roberts once famously said: "The way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." He is likely to use the same logic here.
On the other hand, the effect might not be so great, since some circuit courts don't use different standards for majority plaintiffs and minority plaintiffs while others do. This case would then only affect the half of the circuit courts that have two standards and not the others. Also, proving workplace discrimination is always tough, so it might not lead to a flood of new cases since they are so hard to prove. Still, a 9-0 decision for Ames will give Donald Trump cover for trying to kill off all DEI programs everywhere. He would likely (but not accurately) summarize a decision for Ames as: The Supreme Court has ruled that DEI is unconstitutional. (V)