		<div class="wpcnt">
			<div class="wpa">
				<span class="wpa-about">Advertisements</span>
				<div class="u top_amp">
							<amp-ad width="300" height="265"
		 type="pubmine"
		 data-siteid="109460728"
		 data-section="1">
		</amp-ad>
				</div>
			</div>
		</div>
<p class="has-text-color has-link-color wp-elements-16ac1944643020f8e10e7e1ae44091a3 wp-block-paragraph" style="color:#291a1a;font-size:14px"><strong>US Supreme Court justices unanimously side with an Ohio woman who claims she was denied promotion, then demoted because she is straight </strong></p>



<p class="has-text-color has-link-color wp-elements-63e22060f28fe6f79dbfb1eb25584f69 wp-block-paragraph" style="color:#291a1a;font-size:14px"><strong>Landmark decision Thursday made it easier to bring lawsuits over so-called &#8216;Reverse Discrimination&#8217; in the work place, a decision that will impact cases <strong>in 20 states and the District of Columbia </strong> </strong></p>



<p class="has-text-color has-link-color wp-elements-8f22c79bfbd449a87457bb8f88cb17d4 wp-block-paragraph" style="color:#291a1a;font-size:14px"><strong>Court ruled on an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years </strong></p>



<p class="has-text-color has-link-color wp-elements-1c49bfbcb8c945898fbc14f9f4aae8ac wp-block-paragraph" style="color:#291a1a;font-size:14px"><strong>In 2019, the agency interviewed her for a new management position but ultimately hired another candidate, a lesbian woman</strong></p>



<p class="has-text-color has-link-color wp-elements-239806c68e4ed738cec9792a34f3bd40 wp-block-paragraph" style="color:#291a1a;font-size:14px"><strong>The agency subsequently demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator and later hired a gay man to fill that role</strong></p>



<p class="has-text-color has-link-color wp-elements-b514479ebad44f37acead9a3e2e241dc wp-block-paragraph" style="color:#291a1a;font-size:14px"><strong>Ames then filed this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation </strong></p>



<p class="has-text-color has-link-color wp-elements-ed6515436a9207a278c68ead073b0b64 wp-block-paragraph" style="color:#291a1a;font-size:14px"><strong>A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames, but on Thursday the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts</strong></p>



<p class="has-text-color has-link-color wp-elements-cca27de11d06d6c14bf85c05b3caeaa7 wp-block-paragraph" style="color:#291a1a;font-size:14px"><strong>Courts in the past, typically set a higher bar when majority groupings, including Caucasian and heterosexual complainants file discrimination suits under federal law </strong></p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://konniemoments.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/US-Supreme-Court-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-479841"/></figure>



<p class="has-small-font-size wp-block-paragraph"><strong> In a a unanimous decision on Thursday, nine US Supreme Court sitting at the Capitol that Hill in Washington DC, agreed with an Ohio woman claiming that she was the victim of reverse discrimination in the work place</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A unanimous Supreme Court decision Thursday, makes it easier to bring lawsuits over &#8216;Reverse Discrimination&#8217;, siding with the petitioner, an Ohio woman who claims she was denied the opportunity for advancement before being demoted by her employer because she is straight.<br>The petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various roles since 2004. In 2019, the agency interviewed Ames for a new management position but ultimately hired another candidate, a lesbian woman. <br>The agency subsequently demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator and reverted to secretarial duties, her starting position at the agency, with subsequent cut in pay. Her employer then hired a gay man to fill that role. <br>Ames then filed a lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation. <br>The petitioner&#8217;s case was a bust in the lower court. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.<br>On Thursday, the Supreme Court justices, in a 9-0 ruling, threw out a lower court‘s decision rejecting a civil rights lawsuit by the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, against her employer, Ohio’s department of youth services. The case was sent back to lower courts.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"><img src="https://konniemoments.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Marlean-Ames-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-479852" style="width:788px;height:auto"/></figure>



<p class="has-small-font-size wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Court ruling in the the claim by Marlean Ames, [photo], a heterosexual woman, that she did not get a promotion at a state agency because she is heterosexual. The US Supreme Court allows the petitioner to refile the case in the lower court</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The landmark <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">decision</a>, will impact lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.<br>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups.<br>“By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’, without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group, Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson wrote. </p>


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img src="https://konniemoments.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Marlean-Ames-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-479865" style="width:840px;height:auto"/></figure>
</div>


<p class="has-small-font-size wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Marlean Ames [photo], claims that she didn’t get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. First she interviewed for a position that was then filled by a lesbian woman. Next she was demoted to her starting position of 20 years earlier. A gay man was hired as her replacement</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Though he joined Jackson’s opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country’s “largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.” <br>Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that “American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans.”<br>Two years ago, the court’s conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. <br>The opinion of Justice Jackson focused on the petitioner&#8217;s contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.<br>Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace.<br>The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing “background circumstances” that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.<br>The appeals court noted that Ames didn’t provide any such circumstances.<br>But Justice Jackson wrote that “this additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute.”<br>On a broader scope Thursday&#8217;s supreme court ruling eases the path for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace “reverse discrimination.</p>

US Supreme Court in landmark decision eases path for Ohio woman, others, to make claim of ‘reverse discrimination’ in employment
