Supreme Court to Review White, Straight Worker’s Bias Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether white, straight workers must clear a higher bar when they are trying to prove race and sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We’ve gathered articles on the news from SHRM and other outlets.

Plaintiff Seeks to Revive Lawsuit

The justices took up an appeal by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who is seeking to revive her lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services in which she said she lost her job to a gay man and was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman in violation of federal civil rights law.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that Ames had not shown the background circumstances that courts require to prove that she faced discrimination because she is straight. At least four other U.S. appeals courts have adopted similar hurdles to proving discrimination claims against members of majority groups. Those courts have said the higher bar is justified because discrimination against those workers is relatively uncommon. But other courts have said that Title VII does not distinguish between bias against members of minority and majority groups.

(Reuters via Yahoo)

Congratulations Allegedly Followed by Demotion

The lawsuit alleges that Ames applied for and was passed over for the department’s bureau chief of quality position. Following the rejection, her supervisor allegedly congratulated Ames on 30 years of public service but also suggested Ames retire. Four days later, Ames was allegedly fired from her job as administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act and was asked to return to a lower-level position that she had previously held. Ames took the demotion, and her wages were significantly reduced.

(Daily Mail)

Plaintiff Calls Different Standard Unfair

Ames maintained that it was unfair to require a majority-group plaintiff to show additional circumstances not asked of other plaintiffs who sue under Title VII. Ames failed to produce a pattern of similar discrimination or any proof that employment decisions were made by members of the gay community, the 6th Circuit ruled.

The state of Ohio maintained that Ames was “difficult to work with” and that the Ohio Department of Youth Services had nondiscriminatory reasons for picking another candidate and removing Ames from her position.

(Black Enterprise)

Plaintiff’s Argument

“Discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed,” Ames’ lawyers wrote, quoting from the 1971 Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power. “Imposing a background circumstances requirement on majority-group plaintiffs, as five courts of appeals have done, defies these fundamental principles.”

(National Law Journal)

Anti-Bias Law Protects LGBTQ Workers

Title VII shields workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2020.

“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch for the court. “That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

(SHRM)