Supreme Court hears arguments in “reverse discrimination” case

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The nation’s highest court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a “reverse discrimination” lawsuit which may make it easier for non-minorities to pursue employment discrimination claims.

The case began in 2019 when Marlean Ames sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services. She claimed that the department discriminated against her for being straight after denying her a promotion.

“She applied for a promotion and was qualified for the promotion. Interviewed for the promotion, didn’t get the job. Two other heterosexual employees did the same thing, didn’t get the job, and the job eventually went to a gay employee who neither interviewed nor applied for the position,” said Xiao Wang, an Attorney representing Ames who argued for her on Wednesday.

Wang also says Ames was demoted and replaced by another employee who was gay, who did not interview or apply for the job.

When Ames to sue for discrimination, the lower courts dismissed her claim because it did not show that her employer was unusual in discriminating against of majority groups - which is known as the “background circumstances” standard.

The case challenges the standard, which is used by some courts, and Ames' lawyers argue that it is unconstitutional.

“It instructs courts to practice it by sorting individuals into majority and minority groups based on their race, their sex, or their protected characteristic, and applying a categorical evidentiary presumption not in favor of, but against a nonmoving party based solely on their being in a majority group,” said Wang during his argument before the justices.

Many of the justices on both the left and right seemed receptive to Ames’ arguments and and even Ohio’s attorney seemed to agree with Ames at points.

“I think the idea that you hold people to different standards because of their protected characteristics is wrong. And if there’s any upshot from this case, reverse discrimination completely fall out of the Federal Reporter,” said T. Elliot Gaiser, Ohio Solicitor General, representing the Ohio Department of Youth Services.

“So you agree with petitioner and the Solicitor General then?” asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“On that major premise point,” Gaiser replied. “But we don’t think…"

“Which is the question presented,” said Kavanaugh.

A ruling in the case by the summer.

Copyright 2025 Gray DC. All rights reserved.