Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
AKRON — Marlean Ames was distraught in 2019 when she was bumped from an administrator position at the state agency overseeing youth corrections and replaced by a gay man who she says was less qualified.
Ames was demoted, and her pay was cut more than $40,000. A few months later, she lost a management job she had applied for to a woman who had not sought the position initially, according to a lawsuit Ames would soon file. That woman, too, was gay.
Ames's job discrimination lawsuit makes an unusual claim that could upend how many of the nation's courts have handled such cases for decades: The department, she says, was biased against straight people like her.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in Ames's bid to revive her case, which was stymied in the lower courts because of past rulings that set a higher legal bar for men, straight people and Whites to prove bias in the workplace than for groups that have historically faced discrimination. That higher standard is unconstitutional, her suit says.
The case is being closely watched by corporations and employment lawyers, many of whom expect the high court's conservative supermajority to side with Ames, now 60, and make it easier for members of majority groups to sue.
"If she wins, the flood of reverse discrimination claims will be like nothing we've ever seen," said Johnny C. Taylor Jr., chief executive of the human resources association SHRM. "Straight, White people everywhere could be filing."
Some worry a ruling for Ames could chill workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs at a moment when President Donald Trump has made it a priority to roll back such initiatives across the country and squash "anti-White feeling."
America First Legal, which was founded by top Trump aide Stephen Miller, asked the justices to side with Ames, arguing in a friend of the court brief that it is "highly suspect in this age of hiring based on ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion'" that majority groups face less discrimination on the job than minorities. The group has filed dozens of complaints and lawsuits on behalf of White people in recent years targeting DEI.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund urged the court to rule against Ames, saying a separate test to evaluate bias claims by majority groups is fitting because of the structural inequalities in the United States. Black people and other minorities have historically been the target of bias, the organization wrote, while "reverse discrimination" is rare.
Ames and her attorneys say fears that her case might unleash a wave of lawsuits by majority groups or impede DEI efforts are unfounded. To her, the case is about equality.
"Little did I know at the time that I filed that my burden was going to be harsher than somebody else's burden to prove my case," Ames said. "I want people to try and understand that we're trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just for a White woman in Ohio."
• A career upended
Ames started at the Department of Youth Services in 2004 as an executive secretary, working her way up to oversee a program to combat sexual assault in Ohio's juvenile facilities in 2014. She received solid job reviews and regular salary increases.
In 2019, Ames applied for a management job for the first time. Months later, her direct supervisor presented her with a pin for 30 years of public service and told Ames she should retire. Ames, who was 55, was taken aback.
She was soon called to meet with an assistant director of the department and a human resources official, who, according to the lawsuit, gave her an ultimatum: Take a demotion, or be out of a job.
"I am not going to discuss this with you," the assistant director, Julie Walburn, told Ames, according to her lawsuit. "I am not going to debate it. Just sign the paper and have a job, or do not sign the paper and do not have a job."
Ames said she fled crying and agreed to resume her old secretarial job out of financial necessity. Three days later, a 25-year-old protégé of hers got her administrator job. Ames alleges he lacked the minimum qualifications for the position. "I was absolutely devastated," she said.
The management job also went to someone Ames alleges was less qualified than her and had not expressed interest in the position at first.
Her lawsuit says her former protégé and the woman who got the management job are gay, as is her direct supervisor, who told her to retire. The supervisors who gave her the ultimatum are straight, according to the suit.
Ames also pointed to another incident, alleging it showed bias in the department. In the summer of 2019, her direct boss and other gay supervisors threw a party for a gay man on his 30th work anniversary. Ames said the same was not done for her.
Ames said in an interview that she was never told she was being demoted or not promoted because she was straight. No one made derogatory comments about her sexual orientation, she said, and she was unaware of any other instances of alleged discrimination against straight people in the department.
Ames said she has no problems with gay people but alleged a "long-running scheme" involving her direct supervisor, protégé and others "to kick her out" because of her sexual orientation. She said in a deposition that she believes gay people "stick together."
The Ohio Department of Youth Services did not respond to requests for comment but denied any anti-straight bias in court filings.
The director of the department at the time said in a deposition for the lawsuit that Ames lost her job because her supervisors did not believe she had the skills or vision to effectively address sexual victimization in the state's juvenile facilities.
He described Ames's workplace demeanor as "abrasive" and said she did poorly in her interview for the management job. The candidates who got Ames's former job and the position she sought had skills and experience she lacked, the former director said.
• A test at the Supreme Court
A plaintiff can prove a job discrimination claim in federal court by offering direct evidence of bias - or by building a circumstantial case, because discriminatory intent is often hard to demonstrate.
Since the 1980s, nearly half of the nation's federal appeals court circuits - including the one that covers Ohio - have required members of majority groups to establish "background circumstances" to prove a circumstantial claim of discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is essentially an extra step that accounts for the fact that reverse discrimination is not typical.
The standard requires evidence that supports the suspicion that "the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority" - generally meaning people who are White, male or straight.
A majority plaintiff must show that members of a minority group were the decision-makers in the adverse employment action. Or they could show statistical evidence that demonstrates a pattern of discrimination against a majority group in a particular workplace.
To prove a circumstantial case, both majority and minority plaintiffs must marshal evidence that they were qualified for a job, they were rejected and the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. The plaintiff must also rebut any nondiscriminatory reasons offered by the employer for why they weren't hired.
A judge ruled against Ames without a trial, saying she hadn't provided direct evidence of discrimination or proved background circumstances. The judge found that the adverse employment decisions against her were made by straight people, and that she offered no data to establish the department had an anti-straight bias beyond her case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision.
But one judge on the appeals panel also questioned the "background circumstances" standard, writing that establishing different burdens of proof for different groups was exactly the type of unequal treatment Title VII - which bars job discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin - was created to stamp out.
The standard is "not a gloss upon the 1964 Act, but a deep scratch across its surface," wrote Judge Raymond Kethledge, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
Edward L. Gilbert, one of Ames's attorneys, echoed that point in an interview, saying it was unfair and extremely difficult to gather the type of statistical evidence that would show an employer was biased against a majority group.
"I mean, we would have to, when a person is hired, have asked the question, ‘Are you gay, and were you promoted because you are gay?'" Gilbert said. "That's an illegal question, and it's an inappropriate question."
Ames asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether majority group plaintiffs should have to meet the background circumstances bar.
Her cause has received politically diverse backing. The Biden administration wrote in a friend of the court brief that the background circumstances standard has no basis in the text of Title VII and is unequal.
Reed Rubinstein, senior vice president of America First Legal, said in an email that the background circumstances rule is an "unconstitutional and arbitrary obstacle" to proving discrimination claims.
"The rise of the woke corporation has done tremendous damage to the very idea of equal employment opportunity," he said.
• How the battle could turn to DEI
In 2023, an ideologically divided court struck down affirmative action in college admissions, ruling that such programs - while well-intentioned - violate the Constitution's requirement that all people be treated equally.
"Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
Legal experts say the court may see Ames's claims in the same light, bringing a sea change to law governing workplace discrimination.
Ames's case does not directly implicate corporate DEI programs, but Julie Levinson Werner, an employment lawyer with Lowenstein Sandler, said she views the case as the next major turning point in the raging nationwide battle. Employers are monitoring the case as part of their risk assessments for pursuing diversity efforts in a legal and regulatory landscape they see as antagonistic.
Arguments in the case are coinciding with the Trump administration's wholesale assault on DEI, which includes directives to dismantle federal measures and for the Justice Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate private sector programs. A judge temporarily blocked key parts of Trump's executive orders on the subject Friday.
Jason Solomon, director of the National Institute for Workers' Rights, said there is a risk that a decision in Ames's favor would serve as a springboard for the Trump administration as it seeks to "hollow out antidiscrimination law," despite the absence of any DEI initiatives at play in Ames's case.
Ames said her goal is simply to keep other workers from going through the anxiety and career setbacks she has experienced. She has been promoted from the secretary job since filing the lawsuit and hopes to finish out her career in Youth Services.
"I would like to see everybody have a fair shake if they feel they've been discriminated against and not be pushed in the corner and dismissed because you're a majority," Ames said. "That's the main goal."
(COMMENT, BELOW)