The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday that could have significant implications for workplace discrimination law. A straight white woman is alleging that she was denied promotions and ultimately demoted because her employer prioritizedLGBTQ+ people over heterosexual employees.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
What is the SCOTUS case Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services about?
The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, involves Marlean Ames, a longtime Ohio Department of Youth Services employee. Ames claims that after she was assigned a new supervisor in 2018 — a lesbian — her career took a downturn. She claims she was passed over for promotion, demoted in 2019, and later replaced by LGBTQ+ colleagues, despite her experience and qualifications. In 2020, she sued the department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation.
How did this case get to the Supreme Court?
Related: Black LGBTQ+ Students to Suffer After SCOTUS Strikes Down Affirmative Action
Lower courts dismissed Ames’s case, determining that she failed to meet the legal standard required to prove “reverse discrimination.” In 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, ruling that Ames had not provided enough evidence to show her employer discriminated against her as a member of a majority group. In November 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Justices will be asked whether plaintiffs like Ames must meet a higher burden of proof when alleging discrimination.
That higher standard of proof derives from a rule known as "background circumstances," which is "a judge-made doctrine that requires non-minority workers claiming discrimination to provide additional evidence that the defendant routinely discriminated against the majority group," Bloomberg Law explains.
Background circumstances is "a strange rule meant to discourage meritless discrimination lawsuits by groups not traditionally discriminated against," Ian Millhiser writes at Vox. The case may mean the end of this rule, and Millhiser says that wouldn't be altogether a bad thing. When the D.C. Circuit created the rule in 1981, it was five years after the Supreme Court had ruled unanimously that Title VII should apply equally to majority and minority groups, in an opinion written by the high court's first Black justice, Thurgood Marshall. Millhiser also sees "serious practical difficulties" in applying the rule; for instance, women have a slight majority in the U.S. population, but they have historically suffered more discrimination than men.
Support queer media. Become an Advocate contributor today.
What will a ruling in this case mean?
A ruling in Ames’s favor could establish new legal standards for employment discrimination cases and potentially undermine diversity programs to promote workplace equity. It could also mean a flood of "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. Employers nationwide are watching closely, as the decision could impact hiring, promotions, and how discrimination claims are handled.
Also, a ruling in Ames's favor would be in line with a 2023 ruling that struck down race-conscious college admissions.
The court could issue a narrow ruling that "simply announces that Title VII does not draw distinctions based on majority or minority status," and this is what the law supports, Millhiser writes. However, given the attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, "if the Republican justices decide to follow party orthodoxy, they could go much further, potentially disrupting even fairly uncontroversial efforts to diversify workplaces," he notes.
Related: 14 Supreme Court decisions that changed the landscape for LGBTQ+ rights
The case is the first DEI case to go to SCOTUS under the new Trump term
This case is unfolding at a time when legal challenges to affirmative action and DEI policies are mounting. Since January, the Trump administration has taken sweeping actions to dismantle DEI initiatives, issuing executive orders that eliminate diversity hiring programs and prohibit federal agencies from considering DEI factors in employment decisions.
Related: Trump revokes LBJ-era civil rights protections in federal government contracting
Among these actions was the revocation of Executive Order 11246, a policy first introduced by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 to ensure federal contractors actively prevented workplace discrimination. The rollback of this long-standing policy marked a significant shift in federal hiring practices, effectively stripping away protections that had been in place for nearly six decades. While the administration framed these actions as a return to “merit-based” hiring, civil rights advocates have warned that they undermine workplace equity and open the door to discriminatory practices. However, a federal judge blocked portions of Trump’s anti-DEI measures.
The justices are expected to issue a ruling before the end of their term this summer.
Trudy Ring contributed additional reporting.
