The United States Supreme Court engaged in a public legal discussion that may significantly impact the current cultural conflicts in America.
Ultimately, the justices appeared to reach a consensus on nearly all points—what Justice Neil Gorsuch referred to as ‘radical agreement’—regarding the case of a straight white woman who alleged that her employer discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.
Ames, the plaintiff, sought the justices’ intervention to overturn a lower court ruling that dismissed her discrimination lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she had been employed for over 15 years.
Following nearly an hour of oral arguments, it seems likely that her request will be granted, although the final outcome of her discrimination case remains uncertain.
Ames claims that her supervisor denied her a promotion and subsequently demoted her, opting for less qualified gay candidates in both instances, despite the fact that her supervisor was also gay. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII, prohibits discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.
The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals seeking to file a lawsuit under Title VII must initially establish a prima facie case, which consists of a preliminary set of facts that, if not adequately addressed, could be interpreted as discriminatory.
Ames, being a heterosexual woman, lacked the necessary “background circumstances” to demonstrate that she faced discrimination as a member of a majority group, leading the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to conclude that she did not satisfy that criterion.
Ames expressed that the requirement regarding ‘background circumstances’ was excessively burdensome for her due to her heterosexuality. The attorney representing the state of Ohio appeared to concur with the majority of the justices.
‘We concur, Ohio concurs, that it is unjust to treat individuals differently,’ stated Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser during his inquiry with Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s most senior liberal member, remarked that there was ‘something suspicious’ about Ames’ case that warranted further examination by the lower courts.
‘It seems to me that we are in complete agreement today on this matter,’ Justice Neil Gorsuch humorously noted regarding the necessity for the Court to reaffirm that Title VII is applicable to all individuals without exception.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that the Supreme Court is expected to issue a limited ruling, allowing a lower court to further examine Ames’ allegations based on factual considerations before determining the next steps.
Kavanaugh remarked that the Court’s statement could be succinct, clarifying that discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether against gay or straight individuals, is forbidden, with consistent rules applicable in both scenarios.
Employment law specialists noted that such a ruling could facilitate access to the courts for individuals from majority groups claiming discrimination. Jonathan Segal, an employment attorney and partner at Duane Morris LLP in Philadelphia, stated, ‘On a broader scale, this decision will emphasize to the public that the law equally forbids discrimination against both majority and minority groups. This is likely to lead to an increase in claims from members of so-called majority groups across all circuits.’
Certainly, the Ames ruling should not be considered in a vacuum,” Segal remarked. “It will occur during a period when DEI initiatives are already facing legal scrutiny. A determination of ‘reverse discrimination’ could expose an employer’s DEI programs to investigations at both the federal and state levels.
A verdict in the case — Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services — is anticipated by the conclusion of June.
