Supreme Court Sides Unanimously With Woman Alleging Reverse Sexual Orientation Discrimination
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that an Ohio woman can pursue her claim of being discriminated against at work for being straight — easing the path for some reverse discrimination cases.
The justices’ decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia, where courts had previously set a higher bar for members of majority groups — such as those who are male, white, or straight — to sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
INTO THE DECISION
Lower courts had ruled that people in those groups needed to show “background circumstances” that demonstrate a pattern of discrimination. Today’s ruling means that group no longer will need to show those circumstances.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of three liberal justices on the court, wrote the opinion of the court, siding with the Ohio woman Marlean Ames who argued that it was unconstitutional to have different standards for different groups of people.
“Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson wrote.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring 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.”
Ames asked the Supreme Court to revive her discrimination case after lower courts said she didn’t meet the higher burden of proof.
She claimed the Ohio Department of Youth Services denied her a promotion and demoted her because she’s straight. The Supreme Court revived her case but didn’t rule on whether discrimination occurred.
Larger trend at play: In 2023, the Court struck down race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions. Since then, President Trump has ordered an end to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the federal government and vowed to target universities that implement such programs. This ruling could empower opponents of DEI initiatives to bring more legal challenges.
HEADS UP
June is when the biggest opinions of the Supreme Court’s nine-month term, which began in October, start to come out. About half of the Court’s 62 merits-based cases — those that rule on the legal principles at stake — have yet to be released.
In the coming weeks, we’re watching for rulings on whether judges can block Trump’s birthright citizenship order nationwide, the constitutionality of Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and a case weighing religious rights against public school policies over LGBTQ-themed books.
These rulings come as the Court has faced an unprecedented number of emergency actions this term as federal judges have regularly blocked President Trump’s executive orders. These emergency decisions — known as the “shadow docket” — can be issued at any time and have disrupted the Court’s normal calendar. In contrast, merits decisions are released on a regular schedule at 10 a.m. on opinion days.
