The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could significantly affect workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and expand legal avenues for white and heterosexual employees to sue for discrimination.
The eventual ruling in the case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, could determine whether so-called reverse discrimination claims should be evaluated under the same standards as those brought by historically marginalized groups.
What is the legal issue before the Supreme Court?
At the heart of the case is the “background circumstances” rule, a legal test used by some federal courts when majority-group plaintiffs, such as white or straight employees, bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This rule requires these plaintiffs to prove that their employer is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
Marlean Ames, a former Ohio Department of Youth Services employee and plaintiff in the case, argues that the rule makes it significantly harder for white and straight workers to bring discrimination lawsuits. Ames claims she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted in favor of less-qualified gay employees, a complaint that was rejected by two lower courts beneath the highest.
Ames sued in the Southern District of Ohio, but her case was dismissed for failing to meet the background circumstances rule. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, acknowledging her discrimination claim was plausible since she was demoted and replaced by gay employees but ruling that she failed to meet the extra burden required for majority-group plaintiffs.
However, several other circuit courts have chosen not to apply the background circumstances rule in discrimination cases, creating a split beckoning the nine justices to bring clarity to the issue. The Supreme Court is now set to resolve a circuit split on whether the background circumstances rule should remain in place during an oral argument hearing at 10 a.m. local time.
How does this case relate to the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on discrimination?
The case marks another major fight over discrimination since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, which struck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
That decision held that eliminating discrimination means eliminating it entirely, a principle Ames and her supporters argue should apply equally to employment law.
The Equal Protection Project, led by Legal Insurrection founder William Jacobson, argues in an amicus brief that “reverse discrimination is no longer unusual; it is unfortunately alive and well.”
The brief states that discrimination against white and straight employees has become “ubiquitous,” particularly under corporate DEI initiatives, and that they should not be subject to a higher legal burden.
What are the arguments supporting Ames?
Ames and her supporters argue that the background circumstances rule unfairly places a higher burden on majority-group plaintiffs, making it harder for them to challenge workplace discrimination.
America First Legal, which has filed numerous lawsuits against DEI policies, argues that “nothing in Title VII supports a higher burden for ‘majority’ employees who claim discrimination.”
What are the arguments against Ames?
The Ohio Department of Youth Services defends the background circumstances test as a necessary tool for evaluating discrimination claims fairly. The department warns that eliminating this requirement could open the floodgates to lawsuits challenging diversity policies and complicate efforts to enforce employment laws.
In December, former Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar led an amicus brief in support of the department, arguing, “The district court did not apply the ‘background circumstances’ requirement to Ames’s claim that she was demoted because she is a woman.”
A coalition of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, argues that courts must consider the history of systemic inequality in employment discrimination cases. “Majority-group plaintiffs cannot rely on the same legacy of discrimination to support their claims,” their amicus brief states. The NAACP contends that eliminating the background circumstances rule could make it harder to address long-standing disparities in hiring and promotion.
What stands to change if Ames wins?
A ruling in favor of Ames could make it significantly easier for nonminority employees to bring viable discrimination complaints against employers, depending on the circumstances of their claims.
APPLE SHAREHOLDERS REJECT OVERHAULING DEI PROGRAM’S ‘ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION’
In turn, a favorable ruling for Ames could reshape workplace diversity initiatives and make DEI policies more legally vulnerable, as conservative groups saw as a logical next step with the undoing of affirmative action for college admissions two years ago.
With the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority having already dismantled affirmative action in college admissions, Ames v. Ohio could become another defining decision in the legal battles over race, gender, and workplace discrimination.
