The US supreme court made it easier on Thursday for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace “reverse discrimination”, reviving the case of an Ohio woman who claimed that she did not get a promotion at a state agency because she is heterosexual.
The 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.
Ames argued that she was denied a promotion within the Ohio department of youth services because she is heterosexual. A lesbian was hired for the job instead, and Ames was eventually demoted to a lower position with lower pay, with a gay man taking her previous role.
Misleading title. The issue was that, in discrimination cases, lower courts started making majority groups (white people, straight people) provide extra evidence of discrimination than is usually required in order to win an employment discrimination case. All this decision did is clarified that, for discrimination cases, majority groups don’t need to provide extra evidence of discrimination—there isn’t a higher bar for majority groups. The ‘burden’ of evidence of discrimination is the same regardless of which group is claiming discrimination. The Supreme Court, in making this decision, didn’t decide any facts, they just instructed the lower court to look at the case again with this clarification in mind. The lower courts might still find she wasn’t subject to discrimination.
This lady probably didn’t get a promotion because she has the kind of personal disposition that would cause her to sue for not getting a promotion. Who wouldn’t just go get a different, better job elsewhere?
Without hearing the facts the plaintiff does really sound like a bitch. Entirely possible she was discriminated but getting demoted so a gay person could take your spot is really far-fetched.
She was busy at work asking everyone’s bedroom habits.
I agree. Discrimination is discrimination, there’s no such thing as “reverse” discrimination
And the day just started for me.
The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, threw out a lower court‘s decision…
Is it just me, or has there been an uptick in unanimous Supreme Court rulings lately? Could they be doing some behind-the-scenes vote trading in order to appear more unified in their dealings with the executive branch?
About 40% of the time they are unanimous. And it has been that way since at least when FDR appointed 8/9, probably longer. But people care about controversy more than consensus in their news.
That is just dog bites man vs man bites dog.
“I want people to try and understand that we’re trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just for a white woman in Ohio.”
Riiiight.
as soon as she mentioned her race, we know what she really believes.
