Post Reports: A Straight, White Person Sued for Discrimination – Supreme Court Review

Published on February 25, 2025

Introduction

In the latest episode of Post Reports, hosted by Martine Powers and Elahe Izadi from The Washington Post, the discussion centers around a groundbreaking discrimination lawsuit that has escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, Ames versus The Ohio Department of Youth Services, involves Marlene Ames, a 60-year-old straight white woman, alleging she faced reverse discrimination in her workplace. Supreme Court reporter Justin Juven provides an in-depth analysis of the case, its origins, and its potential implications on future discrimination law and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Marlene Ames' Background and Employment at Ohio Department of Youth Services

Marlene Ames has dedicated 15 years to the Ohio Department of Youth Services, a state agency overseeing juvenile correctional facilities. Her role involved overseeing efforts to combat sexual assault within these facilities. Juven outlines Marlene's career trajectory:

[03:11] Justin Juven: "Marlene Ames is a 60-year-old straight and white woman from Akron, Ohio... she was in a position overseeing efforts to combat sexual assault in juvenile correctional facilities."

Marlene holds a degree in criminal justice, though she did not initially seek out working with youth specifically:

[00:44] Marlene Ames: "I have a degree in criminal justice and..."

In 2019, a 25-year-old gay man joined the department as a social worker. Marlene took him under her wing, fostering a professional relationship that later became contentious.

Alleged Discrimination and Reverse Discrimination Claims

The crux of the lawsuit revolves around Marlene's claims of reverse discrimination. She alleges that her straight and white identity led to her demotion and eventual removal from her position in favor of her gay colleagues.

[01:20] Marlene Ames: "I would like to see everybody have a fair shake."

Marlene recounts the events leading to her lawsuit:

[03:58] Marlene Ames: "He started with the agency as a social worker... I rented a room from him for a while, and we were friends and friendly."

However, tensions arose as her protege expressed desires to assume her role:

[04:39] Justin Juven: "He went around the department telling other people that he wanted her job."

In 2019, after applying for a promotion to manager, Marlene was instead given an ultimatum to accept a demotion or leave her job:

[05:43] Marlene Ames: "Naturally, I was absolutely devastated. Never did I dream that anything like that would have happened to me."

Legal Proceedings and Appeals Process

Marlene filed her discrimination lawsuit in federal court in Ohio in 2020. The initial ruling favored the Ohio Department of Youth Services, with the judge stating that Marlene failed to provide sufficient evidence of anti-straight bias:

[10:09] Martine Powers: "But she says that she had received good performance evaluations up until that point."

Upon appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals again sided with the department but introduced a pivotal standard known as "background circumstances." This standard requires members of majority groups to demonstrate that their employer is uniquely discriminatory against their group, which historically is more challenging due to the precedence of minority group discrimination.

[11:15] Justin Juven: "Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act says job places cannot discriminate... having a separate standard is fundamentally in conflict with the Civil Rights Act."

Frustrated by the appeals court's acknowledgment of an unfair standard, Marlene's legal team escalated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the separate standards for majority and minority groups in discrimination claims.

Impact of the Case and Supreme Court Consideration

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the case, with a decision anticipated by summer 2025. The potential ruling could either uphold the existing "background circumstances" standard or eliminate it, thereby leveling the playing field for all discrimination claims regardless of the plaintiff's group status.

[23:31] Justin Juven: "If the Supreme Court does make the bar lower... it could be a total sea change."

National Battle Over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

Marlene's case emerges amidst a national debate over DEI initiatives. The Trump administration has actively sought to dismantle DEI programs, while conservative legal groups like America First Legal are advocating for more accessible reverse discrimination lawsuits.

[20:27] Justin Juven: "America First Legal... has been filing a lot of claims... they say majority groups don't face as much discrimination in the workplace is no longer a valid idea."

Conversely, the Biden administration supports reevaluating the separate standards, arguing for a unified approach to discrimination law:

[22:17] Justin Juven: "The Biden administration thought that the standard was outdated."

Organizations like the NAACP oppose Marlene's legal argument, emphasizing the historical and systemic discrimination faced by minority groups:

[22:47] Justin Juven: "The NAACP is arguing that historically... it makes sense to have one standard for white people... and a different standard for minorities."

Potential Outcomes and Implications

Legal experts anticipate that the Supreme Court may side with Marlene Ames, potentially abolishing the "background circumstances" standard. This shift would lower the burden for majority group members to prove discrimination, likely resulting in a surge of similar lawsuits. Such a decision could significantly impact DEI initiatives, making employers more hesitant to implement programs perceived as favoring minority groups.

[23:25] Martine Powers: "We’re going to see a flood of these kind of cases in the courts."

The case also reflects broader societal tensions regarding workplace equality and the evolution of anti-discrimination laws in the United States.

Conclusion

Marlene Ames' lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse around discrimination and DEI policies. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the outcome of this case could redefine the legal landscape for discrimination claims, influence corporate DEI strategies, and reshape societal understandings of fairness and equality in the workplace.

Notable Quotes:

• [01:20] Marlene Ames: "I would like to see everybody have a fair shake."
• [03:58] Marlene Ames: "He started with the agency as a social worker... I rented a room from him for a while, and we were friends and friendly."
• [11:15] Justin Juven: "Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act says job places cannot discriminate... having a separate standard is fundamentally in conflict with the Civil Rights Act."
• [22:17] Justin Juven: "The Biden administration thought that the standard was outdated."

This summary is based on the transcript of the Post Reports episode titled "A straight, White person sued for discrimination. Her case is before the Supreme Court," released on February 25, 2025.