The U.S. Supreme Court revived a previously dismissed lawsuit by a straight woman claiming workplace discrimination after losing job opportunities to gay colleagues. They ruled in favor of plaintiff Marlean Ames, striking down a heightened proof standard for majority-group plaintiffs. The decision could increase discrimination claims by those historically not facing bias.
Ames’ Career Path
The Ohio Department of Youth Services is a state agency tasked with overseeing juvenile corrections, parole services, and youth rehabilitation through community programs. Ames embarked on her career with DYS in 2004 as an Executive Secretary within the Akron Parole Region before transitioning to IRJCF in 2005.
In early 2009, Ames ascended to Community Facility Liaison. In that role, Ames's duties revolved around assisting her supervisor in evaluating facilities and ensuring compliance with Ohio Administrative Code standards. Her role also encompassed aiding facilities in adhering to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) mandates—an aspect that would later become central to her litigation claims.
In 2014, Ames was promoted to PREA Administrator within DYS's Office of Quality and Improvement—a Program Administrator 3 specification without supervisory responsibilities. Ames maintained professional relationships under two different supervisors while navigating departmental shifts under Ryan Gies, who was appointed DYS Director in 2019.
Promotion Denied, Job Lost
The narrative takes a turn in 2019 when DYS announced the creation of a new position: Bureau Chief of Quality Assurance and Improvement, a management role intended to provide leadership within the Office of Quality and Improvement. In April of that year, Ames applied for the position, alongside two other candidates. Despite receiving positive feedback during interviews conducted by Walburn and Trim, Ames was not selected for the role.
Instead, Yolanda Frierson, a colleague with prior management experience, was temporarily appointed in December 2019, and permanently the following January 23. Frierson's appointment was influenced by her demonstrated leadership skills and vision for the role, qualities that Ames allegedly lacked, according to DYS leadership.
But in the meantime, things had gotten much worse for Ames. It began with organizational changes initiated by Gies. The Governor's Office had emphasized the importance of addressing sexual victimization issues within the juvenile corrections system, prompting Gies to reorganize the department.
Despite having received positive performance reviews from Gies between 2011 and 2013 during his tenure as deputy director for parole courts and community division, Ames's standing within the department deteriorated due to feedback from community partners describing her as difficult to work with, abrasive, and not collaborative. Additionally, concerns were raised about her administration of PREA grant funds, which were perceived as being rolled out too slowly.
Gies and his Assistant Director, Julie Walburn, expressed doubts about Ames's ability to revamp the department's PREA approach into a more proactive strategy aligned with their vision for preventing victimization in facilities. Walburn specifically noted that Ames lacked the vision and leadership skills necessary for steering DYS towards compliance with PREA standards effectively.
These cumulative concerns led Gies and Walburn to make the decision to remove Ames from her unclassified position as PREA Administrator. They discussed potential replacements before settling on Alex Stojsavljevic, a candidate allegedly favored by Gies for his firsthand experience with PREA at another facility and his strong planning and communication skills.
Ames Takes the State to Court
Ames contends that these adverse employment decisions were motivated not by business and performance reasons. Instead, she alleged sex-based discrimination due to her heterosexuality. Following these events, she filed charges with both state and federal agencies. After that, she initiated litigation against her employer by filing a charge of discrimination with both the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Her litigation against DYS was multifaceted, but it was her Title VII allegations that took center stage.
Ames alleged sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting that she faced bias due to her identity as a heterosexual woman. She alleged this bias manifested in her denial of promotion to Bureau Chief and subsequent removal from her position as PREA Administrator. She further contended that she endured a hostile work environment predicated on sexual orientation and age and accused DYS of retaliating against her for exercising her rights under Title VII.
During preliminary proceedings, the court dismissed several claims (including those related to hostile work environment and retaliation), citing insufficient evidence or jurisdictional limitations. Nonetheless, Ames's sex-based discrimination claim persisted as the crux of the legal battle. Within the framework provided by Title VII, Ames argued that DYS engaged in reverse discrimination by favoring minority groups over majority individuals like herself—a complex claim requiring proof of "background circumstances" indicative of an atypical employer discriminating against majority members.
Courts Dismiss Her Claims
Eventually, the district court ruled in favor of the state governments, dismissing Ames’ Title VII claims. The court found that Ames failed to establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination and could not demonstrate that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons provided by DYS for its employment decisions were pretextual.
The court ruled that Ames did not provide sufficient "background circumstances" to support her claim of reverse discrimination. Specifically, she lacked statistical evidence or indications of policies favoring minority applicants over majority ones, which are necessary to substantiate claims against an employer allegedly discriminating against majority groups. Furthermore, the decision-makers involved in her adverse employment actions (Gies and Walburn) were presumed to be heterosexual, undermining any notion that they discriminated against Ames due to her sexual orientation.
Regarding her demotion from the PREA Administrator position and replacement by Stojsavljevic (a gay man), Ames was unable to show that DYS's rationale had no basis in fact or was insufficiently motivated by legitimate business concerns. The court noted that DYS leadership articulated their vision for revamping the PREA program into a proactive strategy and identified specific issues with Ames's prior work performance as motivating factors behind her removal. Without evidence demonstrating intentional discrimination or disparate treatment compared to similarly situated employees outside her protected class, Ames could not prove pretext.
When Ames appealed to the 6th Circuit, it affirmed the district court’s decision. But she wasn’t about to give up there—she took the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it paid off: they revived Ames’ case.
SCOTUS Changes The Standard
SCOTUS ruled that the Sixth Circuit's "background circumstances" rule is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Court's precedents. Title VII prohibits employers from intentionally discriminating against employees based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and its provisions do not distinguish between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that Title VII focuses on individuals rather than groups, thereby barring discrimination against any individual because of protected characteristics.
The justices cited several precedents that support this reading of the statute. One was Griggs v. Duke Power Co., where the Court emphasized that discriminatory preferences for any group, whether minority or majority, are precisely what Congress intended to prohibit under Title VII. Another was McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., where the Court established that Title VII also prohibited racial discrimination against white employees, applying the same standards as it would for non-white employees.
SCOTUS’s ruling eliminates the higher evidence bar for majority-group plaintiffs in Title VII cases, ensuring equal treatment under the law. This decision may lead to increased discrimination claims from majority groups, as lower courts reassess cases using the standard prima facie framework. While Ames gets another bite at her apple, the decision will impact many more cases to come.
Related Resources:
- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Dealing With Discrimination: Tips for Employees (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Multiple States Rebuked for Denying Transgender Health Care (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
