Supreme Court tackles straight woman's 'reverse' discrimination case

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News/Reuters

Feb. 21, 2025, 2:19 PM EST


Marlean Ames received numerous promotions and good evaluations over the years working in Ohio’s youth corrections system, so when she was denied a promotion and demoted in 2019 with a $40,000 pay cut she said she felt “shocked and hurt and humiliated.” But, according to Ames, that was not all. She had a gay supervisor at the time, she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and she was demoted in favor of a gay man — both of whom, Ames asserted, were less qualified than her.

“That’s how I came to feel that I was being discriminated on because I was straight and pushed aside for them,” Ames, 60, said in an interview. The U.S. Supreme Court is due next Wednesday to hear arguments in her bid to revive her civil rights lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services after lower courts threw it out. She is seeking monetary damages from the state.

A ruling in her favor by the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, could make it easier for non-minorities, including white people and heterosexuals, to pursue claims of illegal bias — often called “reverse” discrimination — under a landmark federal anti-discrimination law.

The dispute centers on how plaintiffs like Ames must try to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex — including sexual orientation. Ames is challenging a requirement used by some U.S. courts that plaintiffs from majority groups, such as white and straight people, must provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to make an initial — or “prima facie” — claim of discrimination under a seminal 1973 Supreme Court ruling that governs the multi-step process employed to resolve such cases.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/supreme-court-tackles-straight-womans-reverse-discrimination-case-rcna193219

[jls4561]

1. I wonder who is paying for her lawyers?

[bucolic_frolic]

2. At her age, 60, seniority and her expected future contribution to the company might be factors

An institution must look forward. They need experienced personnel now, but also 3-5-8 years from now. Her health status may be questioned as well.

The institution could even argue those promoted need experience for their development. It was wrong to reduce her pay, nearing her retirement years, imho. Those are peak earning years for many workers. But I don't see how this situation can be pinned on reverse discrimination alone.

[Jose Garcia]

3. So, you are saying that age discrimination is ok?

[slightlv]

4. Here we go...

I guess she figures it worked for white, straight, xtianist males... so maybe it'll work for her. Frankly, I find it agonizingly awful. Did she ever stop to think the people she's bitching about probably ARE smarter and more committed than she is?

[fargone]

5. The qualifications for a new leadership position can be subjective.

It may be very difficult to prove in court that she was clearly more qualified then the other person although she may believe that. We all like to believe that we are most qualified. To me it seems the demotion may have been a blunder by the defendents. I would think you would need documentation of sub par performance to support that. The story indicates she got good ratings which makes the demotion suspect. They might have saved a lot of court costs by not cutting her salary. The initial bypass of the promotion probably would not have triggered a suit. Piling on with the demotion certainly did. She might have had more early success with an age descriminatio action if the people promoted are significantly younger.