Supreme Court Shows 'Radical Agreement' in Key Employment Discrimination Case
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held a public hearing in a case that could have major implications for the nation’s ongoing cultural debates. Surprisingly, the justices found themselves in what Justice Neil Gorsuch described as a state of “radical agreement” over the core issues.
The case involves a straight white woman, Ames, who alleges that her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. After working there for more than 15 years, Ames claims she was denied a promotion and later demoted in favor of less qualified candidates who were gay — while her supervisor at the time was also gay.
Seeking justice, Ames asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that dismissed her lawsuit. Based on the justices’ comments during nearly an hour of oral arguments, it appears likely that Ames will win the right to proceed with her claim, though the ultimate outcome remains uncertain.
At the center of the dispute is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on “sex or sexual orientation.” Under Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case — meaning initial facts that, if unexplained, could suggest discrimination.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that Ames failed to meet this threshold because she lacked “background circumstances” indicating discrimination against a majority-group member. Ames argued this standard unfairly burdened her because she is straight.
During arguments, Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser largely aligned with the justices, conceding, “We agree, Ohio agrees, that it’s wrong to treat people differently,” when responding to questions from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s senior liberal member, noted that Ames' allegations presented “something suspicious” that warranted further examination by lower courts.
Justice Gorsuch quipped, “We’re in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me,” highlighting the consensus that Title VII protections apply equally to everyone, regardless of majority or minority status.
However, Gaiser pointed out that even if the Court scrapped the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” requirement, Ames might still fall short of presenting enough evidence to advance her case.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the Court’s eventual decision might be narrowly framed, simply reaffirming that discrimination based on being gay or straight is equally forbidden under federal law. “All the Court needs to say,” Kavanaugh remarked, “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.”
Legal experts say a ruling in Ames’ favor could open the door wider for so-called reverse discrimination claims from members of majority groups.
Jonathan Segal, a partner at Duane Morris LLP, noted that a decision reinforcing equal protection “likely will increase in all circuits the already increasing number of claims by members of so-called majority groups.”
Segal also warned that the case cannot be separated from the broader scrutiny currently facing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. “It will take place at a time when DEI programs already are under the legal microscope,” he said. A finding of “reverse discrimination” could prompt further investigations into employers' DEI efforts at both the federal and state levels.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services is expected before the end of June.