Woman takes 'reverse' discrimination case to Supreme Court over hiring of gay co-workers
Marlean Ames had earned positive performance reviews for nearly 15 years in her job at the Ohio Department of Youth Services. But in 2019 when she applied for a promotion, she got passed over for the position and was subsequently demoted.
A gay woman got the job she'd applied for, while a gay man was assigned the job she once had. Her supervisor at the time was also gay. Ames is a straight woman.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will take up Ames' case of alleged "reverse discrimination" and her bid to revive a lawsuit against her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
Lower courts dismissed Ames' claim, ruling that she had failed to meet the standard of proof for discriminatory intent against a "member of a majority group."
The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Ames did not demonstrate "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."
Ames argues that the "background circumstances" requirement -- applied only to plaintiffs from majority groups, such as white and straight people -- is an onerous burden that creates an unlevel playing field. She alleges circumstantial evidence alone in her case is enough to warrant a trial.
"If Ames were gay and the employees hired in preference of her were not, she would have established the elements necessary for her prima-facie case," her attorneys argued in briefs before the high court. "But because Ames falls on the majority group side of the majority/minority fault line, she has no legal recourse."
Prima facie, Latin for "on the face of it," is a legal term to indicate that there are sufficient facts to support a claim.
Ohio argues that the "background circumstances" requirement is not an extra burden but rather a clarification of existing standards set by the US Supreme Court in 1973, equally applied to all.
"That the specific facts that give rise to a suspicion of discrimination differ from plaintiff to plaintiff does not mean that some parties carry a heavier prima facie burden than others," the state argues in its brief. "It just reflects that the precise requirements of a prima facie case can vary depending on the context."
In the case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, the Court established a three-part test for determining employment discrimination under Title VII. First, a plaintiff must show a "prima facie case of discrimination;" if that's met, an employer must provide some legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for the dispute; and then, the burden falls back on the plaintiff to prove that the reason is a "pretext" for discrimination.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the "background circumstances" requirement for plaintiffs like Ames is unfair. A decision, which is expected by the end of June, could, if it's in her favor, make it easier for nonminorities to bring claims of "reverse" employment discrimination."
