SCOTUS appears likely to advance heterosexual discrimination case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed likely to side with an Ohio woman who claimed her employers discriminated against her because she identifies as heterosexual. According to oral arguments the court heard on Wednesday, Ohio’s Department of Youth Services in 2019 passed over the woman, Marlean Ames, for a promotion before demoting her. Ames has worked for the department for over 20 years. Both the position she applied for and the one she was demoted from were given to homosexual employees who had not applied or interviewed for them.

What is the crux of the lawsuit? Ames sued the department, claiming workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her. Both courts applied a rule used by several other appeals courts that said Ames, as a member of a majority group, had to prove additional background circumstances—for instance, that the decision to demote her was made by homosexuals. Ames could not prove such circumstances and appealed to the Supreme Court.

How did the justices respond to oral arguments: All the justices seemed fairly united in favor of Ames through the course of the arguments. Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser, representing the youth services department, acknowledged that everyone should be treated equally under the law, though he said he believed Ames hadn’t shown sufficient proof of discrimination.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh during oral arguments summed up a possible court opinion that seemed to garner support from all the justices: “...discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it's because you're gay or because you're straight, is prohibited, and the rules are the same whichever way that goes.”

If the court decides in favor of Ames, what legal precedent would be set? The Supreme Court’s opinion would likely remove the additional requirement some courts apply to people deemed members of majority groups, making it easier for them to prove discrimination in court.