Supreme Court unanimously rules against unequal standards in workplace discrimination cases
The Supreme Court just unanimously ruled that white, male, or other majority-group employees do not have to meet a higher legal burden to prove workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, questioned the constitutionality of the “background circumstances rule,” which imposes extra legal hurdles for people alleging workplace discrimination based on a person’s race or sex. Under this rule, “majority-group” employees, like white or male workers, are required to provide more evidence than others. This is a complete disregard for the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who the victim is. Fortunately, the Supreme Court agrees, as its 9-0 ruling makes clear.
Marlean Ames had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over 15 years. After five years as an administrator of the department’s programs, she applied for a promotion. Even though she had the experience and qualifications to thrive in the role, the department turned her down, telling her that she had neither the vision nor the leadership skills to fulfill the department’s expectations for the role.
Instead, the role was given to a gay female coworker with significantly less experience in the department and who, unlike Marlean, did not have a college degree. Being denied the promotion was just the beginning. Marlean was then demoted—with a pay cut—after her supervisors called her leadership skills into question. She was then promptly replaced by a gay man who had fewer years of leadership experience.
When Marlean sued for discrimination under the federal civil rights laws, the lower courts ruled against her, saying that she had not satisfied the background circumstances rule requirements because she is a white female. The government must treat every person equally under the law, as the Supreme Court has affirmed with this ruling. Pacific Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner’s argument that discrimination should not be held to different standards of review.
“This ruling restores a fundamental principle: The law must protect all Americans equally,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Jeff Jennings, “The background circumstances rule was outdated and unconstitutional—it forced majority-group employees to prove more, just because of their race or sex. That’s not equal justice.”
Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Mark Miller added, “The Ames decision today is very significant. This ruling levels the playing field. If you were discriminated against, you get your day in court—no matter your background.”
The Supreme Court got it right—civil rights laws are not reserved for select groups—they are a promise of equal treatment under the law for all.
