• The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that may redefine reverse discrimination claims, with justices appearing likely to side with Marlean Ames. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
• The case questions whether majority group members should have a higher burden of proof in discrimination claims, with justices suggesting that Title VII should apply equally to all employees.
• A ruling in Ames’ favor could impact workplace discrimination claims, including lawsuits alleging racial bias due to DEI policies, while some Democratic lawmakers oppose the court’s potential decision.

---

Full Story

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday, Feb. 26, in a case that could reshape how reverse discrimination claims are handled under federal law. The justices appeared likely to side with Marlean Ames, a 60-year-old straight woman who alleges she was demoted and denied a promotion due to her sexual orientation, leading to a significant pay cut.

Justices suggest favorable ruling for Ames

During oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the case could be resolved with “a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it’s because you’re gay or because you’re straight, is prohibited, and the rules are the same whichever way that goes.”

“I entirely agree,” said the woman’s attorney, Xiao Wang.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett reinforced this interpretation of Title VII, stating, “It doesn’t matter if she was gay or whether she was straight; she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted the unusual level of agreement in the case, calling a ruling in Ames’ favor a “wise course” and observing that there was “radical agreement” in the courtroom.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also suggested Ames may have a valid claim, remarking that there was “something suspicious” about what happened.

Potential impact on workplace discrimination cases

If the court rules in Ames’ favor, the decision could significantly impact workplace discrimination claims. It may make it easier for majority group members to file lawsuits under Title VII, including claims from white employees who allege racial discrimination due to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

Some Democratic lawmakers have voiced opposition to the potential outcome.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, wrote on X, “To have the Supreme Court lowering the bar for ‘reverse discrimination’ suits is nothing more than privilege and a straight-up slap in the face!”

To have the Supreme Court lowering the bar for 'reverse discrimination' suits is nothing more than privilege and a straight-up slap in the face! https://t.co/HETyzjDibn

— Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (@RepJasmine) February 27, 2025

Background on Ames’ case

Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services, arguing that she faced discrimination because she is straight. She was passed over for a promotion to bureau chief in favor of a gay woman and was later demoted, with her former role being filled by a gay man.

Ames contended that both candidates were less qualified than she was.

A lower appeals court dismissed Ames’ case, ruling that she needed to show “background circumstances” proving that her employer discriminates against majority group members — a standard not applied to minority discrimination claims. Ames challenged this additional burden, arguing that it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Biden and Trump admins showed support for Ames

The Biden administration backed Ames, arguing that Title VII applies equally to all employees and should not impose additional hurdles for majority group members. The Department of Justice, under both the Biden and Trump administrations, has maintained that Title VII protections apply equally to all workers.

The Ohio Department of Youth Services contends that Ames failed to prove her sexual orientation influenced employment decisions, emphasizing that the supervisor responsible for hiring and demotions was straight.

In arguments before the high court, Ohio attorneys acknowledged that “everyone here agrees everyone should be treated equally.”

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June. If the Supreme Court rules in Ames’ favor, it could expand workplace bias lawsuits and reshape how discrimination cases are handled nationwide.