Supreme Court Rules for Straight Woman in Job Discrimination Suit
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a straight woman with claims that she had twice been passed up for a promotion at her job and that the position in turn had been given to a gay employee. The woman argued that the appeals court had been wrong to require her to provide additional evidence or background information to prove that she had been discriminated against in the workplace, just because she was the member of a majority group.
This decision came after a Supreme Court ruling in 2020 which made it easier for members of majority groups to pursue claims of employment discrimination. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jacks wrote for the court, the standard for providing discrimination under federal civil rights law, “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”
In this case, Marlean A. Ames worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over ten years before applying for a promotion which her supervisor turned her down for. The supervisor cited various reasons for the denial, such as lack of vision and leadership skills. Ultimately, the position was given to a coworker of Ms. Ames, who was a gay woman, and who had been at the department for less amount of time and who had less education than Ms. Ames. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Ames was removed from her existing position and demoted to a lower position with less pay. Ms. Ames’ prior position was in turn given to a gay man with less seniority than Ms. Ames.
Ms. Ames sued under federal civil rights law that forbids employment discrimination based on sex. For the purposes of this lawsuit, Ms. Ames defined discrimination based on her sexual orientation as a form of sex discrimination, which was backed by the Supreme Court’s previous ruling of this nature in 2020. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not differentiate between whether a person claiming discrimination is a member of a majority or minority group, however, there have been court rulings that require members of a majority group to provide additional reasoning to prove the discrimination.
In the case of Ms. Ames, the lower courts did rule that Ms. Ames lacked sufficient evidence and background circumstances to show that the decisions made about her employment were made by the relevant minority group or with statistical evidence. During trial, Ms. Ames stated that the two supervisors who implemented the negative employment action against her were straight, but on appeal, she stated that a gay supervisor had also played a role. The appeals court ruled that this argument was forfeited because it was not made sooner in the case.
The Supreme Court decision ruled in favor of Ms. Ames, and underlines the text of the civil rights law indicating that it draws no distinction between majority and minority group plaintiffs as it relates to employment discrimination. Furthermore, it highlights the fact that members of the majority group are not required to bear a heightened burden over members of a minority group when proving that employment discrimination has taken place, and that the members of each group are to bear an equal burden in this regard.
Henrichsen Law Group, PLLC represents employees only in all types of employment and labor law matters, including federal and state anti-discrimination laws (Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FMLA), sexual harassment claims, wage and hour law claims, employment contracts and non-competition agreements, and employment and related business tort claims. Neil L. Henrichsen has over 30 years of experience fighting for the rights of working people. For a confidential consultation, please contact nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com.