Marlean Ames Supreme Court Discrimination Case: A Landmark Decision on Reverse Discrimination
Marlean Ames, a longtime employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, found herself twice overlooked for job promotions in favor of candidates she believed were less qualified. Notably, both individuals who secured the positions were gay. Ames, a heterosexual woman, attempted to sue for workplace discrimination but faced a significant legal hurdle.
A federal judge dismissed her case, citing her failure to provide “background circumstances” proving that her employer was “an unusual one that discriminates against the majority.” This requirement, imposed by lower courts in so-called reverse discrimination cases, has prevented many majority-group individuals from bringing discrimination lawsuits forward.
The Marlean Ames Supreme Court Discrimination Case now challenges this legal precedent, raising the question: Should discrimination claims be judged differently based on whether the plaintiff belongs to a historically marginalized group?
The case has drawn attention from employment law experts, many of whom predict that if the Supreme Court rules in Ames’ favor, it could lead to a surge in reverse discrimination claims. Ames’ legal team argues that her case would have been allowed to proceed had she been gay and if the employees who received the promotions were heterosexual.
“But because Ames falls on the majority-group side of the majority/minority fault line, she has no legal recourse,” her attorneys stated in a legal filing. This argument suggests that existing legal frameworks provide stronger protections for minority groups while placing higher burdens on majority-group plaintiffs.
The case is being decided at a time when the United States is witnessing a growing backlash against DEI programs. Former President Donald Trump has vowed to “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI” policies, further fueling the controversy surrounding the Marlean Ames Supreme Court Discrimination Case.
Yost argued that Ames was not subjected to a higher legal standard but simply failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination. “The language Ames complains about is just another way of articulating what this Court has recognized: that courts do not consider evidence in a vacuum,” Yost wrote in a filing.
He further emphasized that Ames “has not identified a single piece of evidence that suggests that sexual orientation played any role in the hiring decision.”
Ames has been with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. Initially hired as an executive secretary, she climbed the ranks to various management positions. In 2019, she sought a promotion, which instead went to a gay woman who lacked a college degree and had not originally applied for the role.
Shortly after being passed over, Ames was demoted from her position as a program administrator. Her replacement was a gay man hired as a social worker years earlier. The department justified its decision by stating that Ames lacked the necessary leadership and vision required for the role. Officials also noted that her demotion was due to her failure to adopt a proactive approach to addressing sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system.
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s dismissal, arguing that Ames had not met the required “background circumstances” standard. The court ruled that she did not present statistical evidence suggesting a pattern of discrimination against heterosexuals or demonstrate that decision-makers in her case were gay.
The Biden administration’s Justice Department has pointed out that the McDonnell Douglas ruling did not hinge on the fact that the plaintiff was Black. Instead, it established a legal process that applies to all discrimination claims, regardless of race, gender, or other protected characteristics.
However, in 1981, a federal appeals court introduced the concept that majority-group plaintiffs must meet an additional burden by showing “background circumstances” that suggest an employer discriminates against the majority. Over time, some courts have adopted this higher standard for reverse discrimination claims, while others have not.
In a brief supporting Ohio, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and other civil rights organizations argued that Ames’ case ignores the reality that marginalized groups are far more likely to experience workplace discrimination.
“Majority-group plaintiffs are, of course, protected by Title VII,” the organizations wrote. “They simply cannot rely on this country’s persisting legacy of discrimination targeting minority-group plaintiffs as a relevant factor in support of their claims because they do not share that legacy.”
Meanwhile, organizations representing municipalities warned that weakening the threshold for discrimination claims could flood the legal system with lawsuits, placing an undue burden on employers and government agencies.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, the Marlean Ames Supreme Court Discrimination Case will likely have far-reaching consequences. Even in jurisdictions where the “background circumstances” test is not applied, the case has drawn attention to the legal rights of majority-group employees who feel discriminated against.
“This is one of the most significant employment discrimination cases of the year,” Segal said. “It will impact how employers evaluate their hiring and promotion decisions and how employees perceive their legal protections.”
As the Supreme Court prepares to issue its ruling, both employers and employees are closely watching. The decision could either reinforce the existing legal framework or redefine how reverse discrimination claims are handled under federal law. Either way, the Marlean Ames Supreme Court Discrimination Case is poised to become a landmark moment in employment discrimination law.
