We Were Focus On Skrmetti

But there was another Supreme Court ruling that snuck under the radar... some say the ruling sets a lower bar on dissemination for Whites than minorities!

Supreme Court sides with woman claiming anti-straight job discrimination

Marlean Ames filed a reverse discrimination lawsuit in 2020 after she lost out on two jobs to colleagues who were gay at the Ohio Youth Department.

The Washington Post

By Justin Jouvenal

June 5, 2025

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman who claimed she faced bias in the workplace after she was passed over for positions that went to gay colleagues. The decision will make it easier for people who are White, male or not gay to prove job discrimination claims.

The justices unanimously struck down a standard, used in nearly half of the nation’s federal circuits, that required members of groups that historically have not faced discrimination to meet a higher bar to prove workplace bias than members of minority groups.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the only Black woman on the high court, wrote the opinion that sided with Marlean Ames, an Ohio state government employee who argued it was unconstitutional to have different standards for different groups of people.

The Advocate writes in a February article 7 key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s ‘reverse discrimination’ case,

2. What is a prima facie case, and why does it matter?

A prima facie case is the first step in proving employment discrimination. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must show they belong to a protected class, were qualified for the job, suffered an adverse employment action, and occurred under circumstances suggesting discrimination. If these criteria are met, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a non-discriminatory reason for their decision.

And that is what seems to have ticked-off the court unequal standards.

4. Justice Barrett raises the “floodgates” concern

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether removing the Sixth Circuit’s rule could lead to an influx of cases allowing employees to claim discrimination without solid evidence. “This is just going to throw the door wide open to Title VII suits because now everybody can say, hey, this was discrimination on the basis of race, gender, et cetera?” she asked.

And they write about what the future holds...

7. What’s next? A potential landmark ruling

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by June, and its decision could significantly impact employment discrimination law. If the justices rule in Ames’s favor, the case could eliminate the background circumstances rule entirely.

As Wang put it in his closing remarks, “All Ms. Ames is asking for is equal justice under law. Not more justice, not less, but certainly not less because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion.”

And now we know, the Post article goes on to say...

Corporations and employment lawyers watched Ames’s case closely because many thought a high court ruling in her favor could result in more workplace discrimination claims by members of majority groups.

[...]

The case, known as Ames v. Ohio Youth Department, also coincides with President Donald Trump’s attack on DEI initiatives. Trump has issued executive orders targeting DEI programs in the federal government and has ordered the Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate programs in the private sector.

How will this affect us in the long run? I think contrary to the article I do see more lawsuits, I think for some people they can't believe that a minority can do the job better.