The Supreme Court’s ruled it is unconstitutional to make members of majority groups – in this case, heterosexuals – meet a higher burden of proof to show they suffered ‘reverse discrimination.’
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion today siding with an Ohio woman who had asserted in a lower court case that she suffered discrimination when a state agency passed over her for a promotion because she does not identify as "LGBTQ+."
According to court documents, Marlean Ames had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, the agency interviewed Ames for a new management position, but ultimately chose to hire a lesbian.
A few days later, the agency demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator and hired a homosexual man to fill that role, causing her a significant pay cut.
Ames filed this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, charging that she was both denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Ames' case arrived on the Supreme Court docket after a district court and the Sixth Circuit Court ruled and affirmed in favor of the state agency.
The Supreme Court’s ruling today holds broad significance because members of majority population group – in this case, any non-"LGBTQ+"-identifying individual – are currently required to meet a higher burden of proof in order to show that “reverse discrimination” has occurred.
Writing for the court, far left-justice Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with Ames’ assertion that it is 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,” wrote Jackson. “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs.”
In a separate, concurring opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that the basis for the lower courts’ rulings against Ames are “Judge-created legal rules” that “have a tendency to generate complexity, confusion, and erroneous results.”
Thomas said that he believes some of the nation’s “largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups. American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans.”
According to the Associated Press, "the justices’ decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.”
RELATED
Court sides with homeschoolers against cop and social worker who strip-searched children
