In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court has sided with a straight woman who claimed that she was discriminated against over her sexual orientation. In addition to paving the way for straight plaintiffs to sue for discrimination, the ruling calls into question distinctions between and definitions of majority and minority groups under the law.
Related
Everyone’s least favorite couple has called it quits, and the gays are thrilled
Marlean Ames sued her former employer at the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the office governing the state’s juvenile penal system), claiming that she was passed over for a promotion and ultimately let go in favor of less qualified queer candidates. Her case was supported by numerous conservative groups as well as former President Joe Biden in a court briefing.
Her case rested on a Title VII claim, which is the portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits workplace discrimination. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v Clayton County that the term “sex” in Title VII covers sexual orientation and gender identity.
Your internet debrief
Stay ahead of the most scandalous, hilarious, and mind-boggling internet content delivered directly to your inbox.
But the main issue at the heart of Ames’ case was the treatment of majority groups in the context of nondiscrimination laws. Lower courts had ruled that Ames, as a member of a majority group, had failed to provide substantial evidence to prove discrimination by a minority group.
Thursday’s ruling now effectively eliminates any distinction between majority and minority groups under discrimination law. It also comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action for higher education.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing in the opinion for the court, said that discrimination law “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”
“By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” she added.
Queer advocacy groups have called out this ruling for weakening protections for minority groups at a time when they are under acute assault.
“LGBTQ+ people, in particular, face heightened and increasingly dangerous forms of discrimination — and too often, fewer paths to remedy it,” said Cathryn Oakley, HRC senior director of legal policy, per The Advocate. “This ruling must be understood in the context of that rising tide. Fighting discrimination is not just about one case or one person — it’s about defending the broader promise of equality and justice for all.”
“This moment must also be met with clarity and urgency: underserved communities continue to face a systemically challenged and unleveled playing field in workspaces, schools and public life,” Allen Morris, policy director at the National LGBTQ Task Force, said.
“Nearly 1 in 2 transgender people report experiencing mistreatment in the workforce. We must not excuse or dismiss the lived realities of communities who are fighting to be treated with dignity and fairness. Congress must act to pass comprehensive, explicit federal non-discrimination protections, including the long-overdue Equality Act.”
Sign up for the INTO newsletter and get your twice-weekly dose of stories that shape the queer experience, culture, and lifestyle.
