USA 
United Kingdom
The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that could redefine the standards for proving workplace discrimination claims filed by workers from “majority backgrounds,” such as white or heterosexual individuals.
The case involves Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who contends she was subjected to discrimination by the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames claims she lost her job to a gay man and was later passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman, which she argues violates federal civil rights protections.
Proving majority discrimination
The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that Ames did not meet the required “background circumstances” to support her claim of discrimination based on her sexual orientation. Ames filed her case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on grounds such as race, sex, religion, and national origin.
Courts in various jurisdictions have set different standards for workers from majority groups seeking to prove discrimination claims. Since the 1980s, at least four federal appellate courts have maintained that it should be more challenging for majority-group members to prove discrimination, citing the relative rarity of such cases. These higher thresholds often apply to claims filed by white men but can also extend to other majority-group members. Some courts, however, have held that Title VII does not distinguish between discrimination against minority and majority groups.
DEI debate | Toyota joins the naysayers as it axes diversity plans
If the Supreme Court sides with Ames, the decision could lead to an increase in discrimination claims from white and heterosexual workers, particularly those who allege bias under diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives implemented by their employers. Arguments are set to begin in the court’s new term, which starts on Monday, with a decision expected by the end of June.
Initial case dismissed
Ames’ complaint centers on her role within the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she was responsible for ensuring compliance with federal laws aimed at preventing sexual assaults in juvenile detention centers. Despite receiving positive performance reviews, Ames alleges she was demoted in 2019 and had her pay cut by nearly $20 an hour. She claims she was subsequently replaced by a younger gay man. Later in the same year, Ames applied for a promotion, which she says was awarded to a gay woman.
The case was initially dismissed by a federal judge in Ohio, and the 6th Circuit upheld that decision last December, stating that Ames had not presented sufficient “background circumstances” to substantiate her claims. According to the 6th Circuit, such circumstances might include proof that the individual making the employment decision belongs to a minority group or evidence suggesting a broader pattern of discrimination by the employer against majority-group members.
Representatives for Ames and the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees juvenile offenders, did not offer comment on the case.
