The Supreme Court will decide whether white and straight workers face higher barriers in bias lawsuits

The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether it should be more difficult for workers from “majority backgrounds,” such as white or straight people, to prove claims of workplace discrimination.

Justices accept appeal by Marlean Ames, a straight woman seeking to reinstate her lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, in which she said she lost her job to a gay man and was passed over for a promotion in favor of a homosexual. woman who violates federal civil rights law.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled last year that she had not shown the “background circumstances” that courts require to prove she faced discrimination because she is straight, as she she claimed.

She brought her suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the flagship federal law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on characteristics including race, sex, religion and national origin.

Since the 1980s, at least four other U.S. appeals courts have adopted similar hurdles to prove charges of discrimination against members of majority groups, mostly in cases involving white men. These courts have stated that the higher bar is justified because discrimination against those workers is relatively uncommon.

But other courts have said that Title VII does not distinguish between prejudice against minority and majority groups.

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Ames could spur a growing number of lawsuits by white and straight workers who claim they have been discriminated against under the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

The court will hear the arguments in the case in the new term, which starts on Monday, and a decision is expected by the end of June.

Attorneys for Ames and the Ohio agency that oversees the detention and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Ames was responsible for ensuring the agency’s compliance with a federal law designed to deter sexual assaults in prisons. She said that despite receiving positive feedback for her job performance, she was demoted to her old job in 2019 and had her pay cut by nearly $20 an hour.

Ames said she was replaced by a younger gay man and later in 2019 was denied a promotion she had sought, which was given to a gay woman.

She sued the department in 2020. A federal judge in Ohio dismissed the case last year, saying she had not shown the “underlying circumstances” to support her claim of discrimination.

The 6th Circuit upheld that decision last December. The 6th Circuit said that substantive circumstances can include evidence that a member of a minority group, such as a gay person, made the challenged employment decision or data showing a larger pattern of discrimination by an employer against members of a majority group.

FACTBOX-Guns, transgender rights, porn, regulatory powers, cases head to US Supreme Court Read full story

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

TOPICS
PROCESSES