The U.S. Supreme Court had a public legal debate that could have big effects on America’s ongoing culture wars.
In the end, the justices seemed to agree on almost everything—what Justice Neil Gorsuch called “radical agreement”—about the case of a straight white woman who said her employer discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation, ABC News reported.
Ames, the plaintiff, had asked the justices to overturn a lower court decision that threw out her discrimination lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she had worked for more than 15 years.
After just under an hour of oral arguments, it looks like she will get what she wants, though it’s still not sure that she will win her discrimination case in the end.
Ames says that her boss turned her down for a promotion and then demoted her, choosing gay candidates who were less qualified in both cases. At the time, her boss was also gay.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964’s Title VII makes it illegal to treat people differently because of their sex or sexual orientation.
The Supreme Court has said that people who want to sue under Title VII must first show a prima facie case, which is a first set of facts that, if left unexplained, could reasonably be seen as discrimination.
If Ames was a straight woman, she didn’t have the “background circumstances” to show that she was discriminated against because she was a member of a majority group, so the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said she didn’t meet that bar.
Ames said that the “background circumstances” requirement was too hard on her because she is straight. The lawyer for the state of Ohio seemed to agree with most of the justices.
“We agree, Ohio agrees, that it’s wrong to treat people differently,” Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser told Justice Amy Coney Barrett during questioning.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior liberal member of the court, said that Ames’ case had “something suspicious” about it that should be looked into further by the lower courts.
“We’re in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me,” quipped Justice Neil Gorsuch about the need for the Court to reassert that Title VII applies to everyone equally.
Gaiser argued that even if the Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule for white, straight, male (i.e. majority-group) plaintiffs, Ames might not have made a strong enough case of discrimination to move forward.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the Supreme Court is likely to give a narrow opinion and let a lower court think more about Ames’ claims based on facts before deciding if they should go forward.
All the Court needs to say, Kavanaugh said, “is 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.”
Employment law experts said that this kind of decision might actually make it easier for people from majority groups to go to court and say they were discriminated against.
“On a broader level, the ruling will reinforce to the public that the law prohibits discrimination equally against majority and minority groups alike,” said Jonathan Segal, an employment lawyer and partner at Duane Morris LLP, a private firm based in Philadelphia. “This likely will increase in all circuits the already increasing number of claims by members of so-called majority groups.”
“Of course, the Ames decision cannot be viewed in isolation,” Segal added. “It will take place at a time when DEI programs already are under the legal microscope A finding of ‘reverse discrimination’ may subject an employer’s DEI programs to federal and state investigations.”
A decision in the case — Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services — is expected by the end of June.