The good news is that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of Marlean Ames. She is a cisgender, heterosexual woman who said she suffered discrimination in the workplace due to her sexual orientation. In a rare unanimous 9-0 decision, the justices ruled to overturn that lower court’s ruling. This ruling had thrown out Ames’ civil rights lawsuit against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services. The case raises significant questions regarding the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly concerning how plaintiffs must demonstrate discrimination.
Ames contended her denial of a promotion and subsequent demotion were directly related to her heterosexuality. The court’s decision comes in the wake of a larger national focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies overall. This scrutiny has been particularly acute over the last four years under the Trump administration. This complicating backdrop makes Ames’ claims all the more problematic. It reflects the greater societal debates around equality and representation in the workplace.
Most importantly, in her original complaint, Ames pointed out that the individuals making hiring decisions were heterosexual. However, the qualified lesbian candidate was hired by the department instead of Ms. Then, Ames was forced to accept a new, lower-paying job as a result, with the gay man taking her old job. This chronology of events, along with the context of Deep Roots’ public nature, compounded her claim that discrimination based on sexual orientation had taken place.
At issue was the legal standard that should be used to prove discrimination under Title VII. To recap the case, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier threw out Ames’ claims. Because of her identity as a member of a majority group, they contended she had to pass a higher standard. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in a unanimous opinion of the court, issued Thursday, the court’s intent could not be clearer.
“We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.” – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
The Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in the very similar case of Sebelius v. It further sets a standard for how similar claims should be addressed moving forward. It continues to strengthen the understanding that all workers, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual, should be protected from discrimination by civil rights statutes.