The Supreme Court is leaning toward reviving a straight woman's reverse discrimination case, reports The Hill.
Marlean Ames in 2020 sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming she had been wrongfully denied a promotion in 2017 in favor of a lesbian who was not qualified for the role.
She was then demoted and replaced by a gay man.
Ames is challenging a requirement that "majority" Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate "background circumstances" to pursue their suit.
The justices on Wednesday heard her case and tore into T. Elliot Gaiser, the lawyer representing Ohio.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated a way of resolving the case that seemed to enjoy broad support among his colleagues.
"Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes," Kavanaugh said.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.
The question for the justices is that the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit and several other appeals courts covering 20 states and the District of Columbia apply a higher standard when members of a majority group make discrimination claims. People alleging workplace bias have to show "background circumstances," including that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.
The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances.
"At the heart of this case, at bottom, all Ms. Ames is asking for is equal justice under law," said Xiao Wang, Ames's attorney. "Not more justice, not more justice, but certainly not less and certainly not less because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion."
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett at one point asked Ames' attorney to respond to Ohio's contention that lowering the legal standard "is just going to throw the door wide open to Title VII suits because now everybody can say, 'Hey, this was discrimination on the basis of race, gender, et cetera?'"
"I don't think that contention is well taken," Wang responded.