AKRON, Ohio — In 2019, Marlean Ames faced a significant career setback when she was removed from an administrative role at the state agency overseeing youth corrections. She was replaced by a gay man, whom she claims was less qualified. As a result, Ames experienced a demotion and a substantial pay cut of more than $40,000. Later, she lost another management position to a woman who had not initially applied. According to Ames's lawsuit, this woman was also gay.
Ames's job discrimination lawsuit presents a unique claim that challenges long-standing legal precedents: she argues that the department discriminated against straight individuals like herself. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Ames's attempt to revive her case, which was previously dismissed by lower courts due to existing rulings that impose a higher legal burden on men, straight people, and Whites to prove workplace bias compared to historically discriminated groups. Ames's suit contends that this higher standard is unconstitutional.
The case is garnering attention from corporations and employment lawyers, who anticipate that the Supreme Court's conservative majority might support Ames. A ruling in her favor could potentially lead to an influx of reverse discrimination claims. "If she wins, the flood of reverse discrimination claims will be like nothing we’ve ever seen," said Johnny C. Taylor Jr., CEO of the human resources association SHRM.
Some experts express concern that a favorable ruling for Ames might deter workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, especially as former President Donald Trump has aimed to reduce such initiatives. America First Legal, founded by Trump's aide Stephen Miller, supports Ames, arguing that majority groups face as much discrimination in today's workplace environment.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund has urged the court to rule against Ames, asserting that a separate test for evaluating bias claims by majority groups is justified due to structural inequalities in the U.S. They argue that "reverse discrimination" is rare compared to the historical bias against minorities. Ames and her attorneys argue that her case is about equality, emphasizing the need for a level playing field for everyone, not just for a White woman in Ohio.
Ames's journey at the Department of Youth Services began in 2004, where she rose to oversee a program addressing sexual assault in Ohio’s juvenile facilities. Despite positive job evaluations and salary raises, Ames faced an unexpected demotion in 2019. Her lawsuit claims this decision was part of a "long-running scheme" to oust her based on her sexual orientation. Ames's allegations include bias incidents, such as unequal treatment during work anniversary celebrations.
Since the 1980s, several federal appeals courts have required majority group members to prove "background circumstances" to establish a circumstantial discrimination claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This additional step is justified by the rarity of reverse discrimination. Ames's case challenges this standard, with her attorneys arguing that it's unfair and burdensome to gather the necessary statistical evidence.
The Supreme Court's decision could have far-reaching implications for workplace discrimination laws. Legal experts suggest that the case might mirror the court's recent rulings against affirmative action in college admissions, which emphasized equal treatment for all.
Although Ames’s case does not directly target corporate DEI initiatives, it is viewed as a significant turning point in the ongoing debate over workplace diversity efforts. Employers are closely monitoring the case as they navigate a challenging legal and regulatory environment. The outcome could align with the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle DEI measures, despite the absence of such initiatives in Ames's situation.
Ames, who has since been promoted from her secretarial role, hopes her case will ensure fair treatment for all workers facing discrimination. "I would like to see everybody have a fair shake if they feel they’ve been discriminated against and not be pushed in the corner and dismissed because you’re a majority," Ames stated. "That’s the main goal."
