The nation’s highest court has agreed to weigh in on a contentious issue: whether employees from dominant social groups, such as Caucasians or heterosexuals, face an unfair burden in proving workplace discrimination claims. The case centers around Marlean Ames, a straight woman who alleges she was unfairly terminated and overlooked for promotion in favor of LGBTQ+ individuals at the Ohio Department of Youth Services. A lower court ruled that Ames failed to demonstrate the necessary “circumstantial evidence” to support her claims of discrimination, citing a lack of proof that she was targeted due to her sexual orientation.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take on this case could have significant implications for the growing number of lawsuits filed by straight and white workers who claim they’ve been victimized by corporate diversity initiatives. At the heart of the matter is the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and national origin. While some courts have imposed a higher standard of proof for majority group members alleging discrimination, others argue that the landmark legislation does not differentiate between bias against minority and majority groups.
Ames’ lawsuit, filed in 2020, claims she was demoted and had her pay slashed despite receiving positive performance reviews. She alleges that a younger gay man replaced her, and that she was later passed over for a promotion that went to a gay woman. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the case during its upcoming term, with a decision expected by June.
Leave a Reply