Supreme Court Hears 'Reverse Discrimination' Case by Straight Woman Who Claims Her Job Was Given to Gay Man

The Supreme Court signaled a potential shift in workplace discrimination law Wednesday, as justices weighed whether a straight woman's claim—being passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian colleague then replaced by a gay man—deserves the same legal protections typically extended to marginalized groups.

Marlean Ames filed a Title VII sex discrimination claim against the Ohio Department of Youth Services after being passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian colleague. Shortly after, she was demoted, and a gay man took her position.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, along with lower courts, ruled in favor of the state, stating plaintiffs from majority groups face a higher burden when proving discrimination.

Ames' legal team is challenging that precedent, arguing it unfairly weakens protections for all employees.

During oral arguments, justices from both sides of the aisle appeared to agree: the higher burden contradicts federal employment law.

"It doesn't matter if she was gay or whether she was straight, she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said per NBC News.

Justice Neil Gorsuch called a ruling in Ames' favor a "wise course."

Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser initially defended the state's stance but, under pressure, acknowledged a shared belief "everyone should be treated equally."

Ames' case will likely be sent back to lower courts for further litigation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested Ames' claim had merit, stating there was "something suspicious" about the circumstances of her demotion.

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Ames could reshape workplace discrimination law, potentially making it easier for white employees to challenge diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

Conservative legal group America First Legal, known for suing companies like Starbucks and IBM over DEI policies, filed a brief backing Ames.

The Ohio Department of Youth Services argues that Ames' demotion was due to leadership restructuring and claims she was difficult to work with. State officials also noted the decision-makers were straight. The ruling is expected to clarify how Title VII applies to majority-group employees in discrimination cases.