Supreme Court Eases Path for Reverse Discrimination Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it easier for individuals from majority backgrounds to pursue workplace discrimination claims. A 9-0 ruling revived Marlean Ames' lawsuit, alleging she was denied promotion due to her heterosexuality. The decision clarifies Title VII protections, eliminating stricter proof requirements for majority-group plaintiffs.

The U.S. Supreme Court has paved the way for individuals from majority backgrounds to more easily pursue claims of workplace discrimination, often referred to as 'reverse discrimination,' following a landmark ruling on Thursday. The case in question involved an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who alleged she was unfairly denied a promotion and demoted due to her heterosexuality. The unanimous 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, overturned the previous court's rejection of Ames' case against the Ohio Department of Youth Services.

At the heart of the legal battle was the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex, including sexual orientation. Ames contested a specific requirement that majority-group plaintiffs must provide additional evidence compared to minority plaintiffs to establish an initial case of discrimination, as per the multi-step process outlined in a 1973 Supreme Court ruling.

Justice Jackson underscored that Title VII's language and prior court precedents unequivocally extend equal protection to all individuals, regardless of majority or minority status. This historic ruling emphasizes that courts cannot impose unique requirements exclusively on majority-group plaintiffs. Ames' lawsuit, initially filed in 2020, sought monetary damages, asserting she was more qualified legally and professionally than the individuals who were promoted over her.

(With inputs from agencies.)