Reverse Discrimination: Supreme Court Ruling
- The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who claimed she was denied a promotion because she is heterosexual.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that Title VII does not impose a higher standard on majority group plaintiffs.
- Ames contended she was overlooked for a position at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in favor of LGBTQ employees. She filed suit in 2020, alleging a violation...
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court clarifies the path for reverse discrimination claims, a critically importent victory for Marlean Ames of Ohio, who alleged workplace discrimination. This pivotal ruling centered on a promotion denial impacting individuals alleging reverse discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, will reshape how such cases are viewed across the country. The court’s unanimous decision, impacting lawsuits in 20 states, lowers the burden of proof, ensuring that those not part of historically underrepresented groups also have stronger legal recourse. Justice Jackson’s opinion underscores that Title VII applies equally, a critical point for civil rights law. For more details about this breaking story from News Directory 3 and the implications for future litigation, stay tuned. Discover what’s next …
Supreme Court Ruling Eases Path for Reverse Discrimination Claims
Updated June 05, 2025
The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who claimed she was denied a promotion because she is heterosexual. This decision on workplace discrimination will make it easier for individuals to pursue “reverse” discrimination claims based on characteristics like race or sexual orientation.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that Title VII does not impose a higher standard on majority group plaintiffs. The ruling reverses a lower court decision that required plaintiffs from majority groups to demonstrate “background circumstances” proving their employer discriminates against the majority.
Ames contended she was overlooked for a position at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in favor of LGBTQ employees. She filed suit in 2020, alleging a violation of her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Dave Yost, Ohio’s Republican Attorney General, argued in court documents that Ames was rejected due to a perceived lack of vision and leadership.
The ruling on reverse discrimination could affect lawsuits in 20 states and Washington, D.C.,lowering the bar for those alleging civil rights violations who are not members of historically discriminated-against groups. Conservatives have long argued that diversity initiatives can themselves constitute discrimination.
What’s next
The case now returns to the lower courts, where Ames’ claim will be re-evaluated under the standard set by the Supreme Court’s new ruling on reverse discrimination.