The U.S. Supreme Court will soon deliberate on Marlean Ames' discrimination case against the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames, a white, heterosexual woman, claims she faced workplace discrimination when she was unfairly replaced by LGBTQ employees. The court will consider whether plaintiffs from "majority classes," such as white individuals, must meet a higher standard to prove discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Oral arguments are scheduled for February 26, with a decision expected by the end of June.
The case arises at a time when President Donald Trump’s administration has scrutinized federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, arguing they are divisive and inefficient. However, legal experts suggest that recent administrative actions may not directly influence the Supreme Court’s decision in Ames' case.
Ames began her career at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 as an executive secretary. Over the years, she earned several promotions and consistently received positive performance reviews. However, when she applied for a bureau chief position, her gay supervisor selected a less experienced, gay candidate for the role. Ames was subsequently demoted and later replaced by another gay employee. Ames alleges these actions were discriminatory and filed a workplace discrimination claim under Title VII.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames, stating that as a member of a majority class, she needed to prove the employer had a broader pattern of discriminating against majority-class members. Ames argues this imposes an unfairly higher burden of proof compared to claims from minority-class individuals. Her legal team contends this requirement conflicts with Title VII’s purpose, which prohibits discrimination against all protected classes.
Michael Elkins, a labor and employment attorney and founder of MLE Law, emphasizes that Title VII safeguards all individuals, regardless of majority or minority status. He notes that discrimination cases commonly referred to as "reverse discrimination" are simply discrimination cases under the law. Elkins believes the 6th Circuit's ruling improperly raises the standard for majority-class plaintiffs like Ames.
The Ohio Attorney General’s office, representing the Department of Youth Services, disputes Ames’ claim. Attorney General Dave Yost argues that Ames was not held to a higher standard and urges the justices to uphold the lower court’s decision.
Elkins disagrees, asserting that Ames has a strong case and expects the Supreme Court to rule in her favor. He predicts a 9-0 decision, stating, “I can’t imagine anyone on this court — even the liberal judges — saying that majority plaintiffs should face a higher burden.”
This case provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify whether Title VII requires different burdens of proof based on majority or minority status. A ruling in favor of Ames could set a precedent for how discrimination claims are evaluated moving forward.
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on this significant case, we want to hear your thoughts. Should majority-class plaintiffs face a higher burden to prove discrimination? How do you think the court’s decision will impact workplace discrimination claims? Let us know in the comments below!
