Quick Hit:

In a major unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that majority group individuals—such as heterosexuals—are fully protected under federal anti-discrimination laws, siding with an Ohio woman who alleged she was demoted and denied a promotion due to her sexual identity.

Key Details:

• The 9-0 ruling supports Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who claimed she was discriminated against in the workplace.
• Justices ruled that Title VII protects majority groups equally from reverse discrimination.
• Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, strengthening the Court’s stance.

Diving Deeper:

In a decision that could shape future workplace discrimination lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously in favor of an Ohio woman who claimed she faced unlawful discrimination due to her identity as a heterosexual.

The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, centered on Marlean Ames, a former executive secretary and program administrator who worked at the state agency for over a decade. Ames alleged that, despite receiving positive performance reviews—including from a gay supervisor—she was denied a promotion in 2019 and later demoted, with both roles going to gay employees.

Ames filed suit, claiming her demotion and the denied promotion constituted illegal discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals initially dismissed her claim, saying she failed to show a pattern of discrimination or “background circumstances,” the nation’s highest court disagreed.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court, affirming that the protections under Title VII apply to all individuals, not just those in historically disadvantaged groups. The Court made clear that “reverse discrimination”—discrimination against members of majority groups—is just as unlawful as any other kind.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a concurring opinion, reinforcing the constitutional principle of equal treatment under the law.

The lower court’s requirement that Ames, as a heterosexual woman, provide additional proof of discriminatory intent was a key point of contention. As GianCarlo Canaparo of The Heritage Foundation noted, “If Ames had been in a minority group, all she would have to show to get a trial is that someone with a different sexuality was treated better.” But because she was in a majority group, the bar for even having her case heard was significantly higher—until now.

Xiou Wang, who represented Ames before the Court, argued the standard was not only unfair but unconstitutional, stating it "perpetuates the workplace reverse discrimination Ames faced."

The ruling builds on precedent set in Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), a case where the Court held that employers cannot discriminate against majority group members in the name of diversity.

 (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)