In a surprise showing of unanimity, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of a heterosexual Ohio woman who alleged she was the victim of reverse discrimination.
Marlean Ames filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services after she was passed over for a new management position that ultimately went to a lesbian woman who she said was less qualified. She also alleged the agency subsequently demoted her from her role as a program administrator and hired a gay man in her place.
Ames filed a lawsuit in Ohio against the agency under Title VII, alleging she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. After the lower courts ruled she would be held to a higher standard of proof because she is part of the “majority group” as a straight woman, Ames appealed to the Supreme Court and all nine justices ruled in her favor.
On Thursday’s show, Megyn was joined by Stu Burguiere, host of Stu Does America, to discuss the ruling and why it was able to unite justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
The Case
Ames had worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. She received positive reviews and multiple promotions throughout her tenure. In a 2020 lawsuit, Ames argued she was discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation in 2019 after she was passed over for a promotion and then again when she was replaced in her own role by a gay man.
Ames filed this lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII (which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) alleging she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation. The District Court granted summary judgment to the agency, and, on appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the decision on the basis of the “background circumstances” rule, which requires members of a majority group — such as white people, straight people, Christians, etc. — to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim.
“The lower courts allowed her to file this claim, but they said you’re going to be held to a higher standard of proof because you’re straight because, generally, there is a presumption in the law that people don’t discriminate against people who are part of the majority group,” Megyn explained. “You have to prove more than a gay person or a person of color, etc. would have to prove. You have to prove, for example, that there is a history of this employer discriminating against straight people… [or] statistical proof that majority members continuously get discriminated against by this employer. And [Ames] said, ‘That’s bullsh-t. That’s not fair either. That, too, is discriminatory against straight people.'”
The Ruling
And the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with her. “What this decision effectively does is lower the burden of proof that people in the so-called majority group… who are not considered part of any protected class, now have to meet in order to bring what we used to just call reverse discrimination claims,” Megyn added.
In a surprise move, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned the opinion. “The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs — those who are members of majority groups — to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard,” she wrote. “We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated.”
The order does not fully resolve Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services in Ames’ favor. The court noted the state had “alternative arguments” for why the agency’s treatment of Ames was justified, and the justices did not weigh in on those. Instead, the court struck down the “background circumstances” rule and sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
As Megyn explained, the “background circumstances” rule is used by some federal courts but not others. The Sixth Circuit fell into the former category, but this ruling puts an end to the discrepancy once and for all. Justice Clarence Thomas spoke to the issue in his concurring opinion.
“Courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII’s anti-discrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs need not do so. Such a rule is undoubtedly contrary to Title VII, and likely violates the Constitution, under which ‘there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race,'” Thomas wrote. “Thankfully, today’s decision obviates the need for courts to engage in the ‘sordid business’ of ‘divvying us up by race’ or any other protected trait.”
In the age of BLM, DEI, critical race theory, and the like, Megyn and Burguiere agreed it was striking to read the opinions of Jackson and Thomas. “I mean, it is a final judgment on that [Ibram X. Kendi] nonsense from a court that includes two black members – one as conservative as they come and one as liberal as they come,” Megyn said.
The Significance
While many of the Supreme Court’s most high-profile and closely watched decisions have been split along ideological lines in recent years, unanimous rulings are actually quite common and this, Megyn said, is an important one.
“The court is always saying most of their decisions, the vast majority, are actually unanimous. It’s a small handful that wind up 5-4 and give the Supreme Court this controversial reputation,” Megyn noted. “It makes leftists say we have to delegitimize them, and stack the court, and all that stuff. But this is 9-0… [and] is great.”
Burguiere agreed. “It is fantastic, and it does kind of make you sit back and say, ‘Hey, there actually is sanity out there. This can still happen,'” he said. “I love this, and I will be honest… if you would have told me before that it was going to be 9-0, I would have been shocked… This type of case I would have expected at least a 6-3 or 7-2 situation.”
He believes the consensus may mark a turning of the tides. “There has been a push over the past 10 to 20 years to… push for equity instead of equality; this idea of equity, or equality of outcomes as opposed to equality of opportunity. And for a really long time, it seemed like we were going down a road that didn’t end well,” Burguiere said. “And while a lot of the opinion makers… express this very stupidly on a day-to-day basis, the law didn’t change. That principle of ‘color blindness’ is still entrenched in the law. Our justices still recognize it – even crazy ones like Sonia Sotomayor – and that is really interesting.”
You can check out Megyn’s full interview with Burguiere by tuning in to episode 1,087 on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you like to listen. And don’t forget that you can catch The Megyn Kelly Show live on SiriusXM’s Triumph (channel 111) weekdays from 12pm to 2pm ET.