Supreme Court Appears Poised To Rule In Favor Of ‘Straight Discrimination’ Case

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case brought by Marlean Ames of Ohio, who says she’s the victim of “straight discrimination.” Ames, who works for the Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, says she applied for a promotion in 2019, but didn’t get the job. Her supervisor, who reportedly identifies as LGBTQ, said Ames (and other applicants) failed to present their vision for the job. The spot wasn’t filled for months, but eventually went to a woman who identifies as lesbian. Ames’s attorneys say the woman had been with the department less time than Ames, and didn’t apply for the position. According to her lawyers, Ames was apparently demoted, and was replaced in her old job by a gay man. The case before SCOTUS centers on a requirement used by some lower courts that places a higher burden on folks who are members of a majority group (straight people) than those in minority groups. More from CBS News:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared poised to side with an Ohio woman in her bid to revive a lawsuit alleging “reverse discrimination” after she said she was denied a promotion and demoted because she is straight.

Marlean Ames, the woman who brought the case, argues that a “background circumstances” requirement adopted by some lower courts unfairly imposes a higher burden on her as a heterosexual woman.

The standard requires plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to put forth more evidence than those in a minority group in order for their case to proceed.

Ames seems likely to prevail in her effort to have her case restored, with most — if not all — of the justices appearing to agree with her argument that federal employment law does not require her to meet a higher bar just because she is a member of a majority group as a heterosexual woman.

The Supreme Court could send the case back to the lower courts for additional proceedings.

During the hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett reportedly said that whether Ames is gay or straight, “she would have the exact same burden” and be treated the same under Title VII.