Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

Last updated

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case nameMarlean A. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
Docket no. 23-1039
Case history
PriorSummary judgment for the defendant, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 2:20-cv-05935 (S.D. Ohio March 16, 2023). Affirmed, 87 F.4th 822 (6th Cir. 2023).
Questions presented
Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services is a pending United States Supreme Court case about whether a claim of reverse discrimination requires a showing of additional "background circumstances" supporting a suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majority group.

Contents

In Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of the protected characteristics of color, race, sex, religion, and national origin. [1] : 174  In McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. (1976), the Supreme Court held that this prohibits discrimination against members either of a minority group or of a majority group. [1] : 169  And in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation qualifies as prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex. [2]

In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), the Supreme Court held that, in order to survive a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff alleging discrimination under Title VII must make a prima facie showing of discrimination, the first in a series of shifting burdens of proof known as McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting. [2]

Case history

The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight woman who alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [3] She had worked in the department since 2004. In 2017, Ames was reassigned to a new supervisor, who was a lesbian woman. In 2019, she applied for a promotion to be bureau chief of quality. Her application was rejected, and she was demoted from her position as administrator shortly afterwards. The promotion was given instead to a lesbian co-worker, and the administrator position was given to a 25-year old gay man. [4]

Ames sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, applying the "background circumstances" test, under which Ames had to show either statistical evidence that her employer discriminated against the majority group or evidence that the employment decision was made by the minority group. [4] On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said that Ames had satisfied the usual elements of a prima facie showing of sex discrimination because she was demoted from a position from which she was qualified and replaced with a gay man. [2] However, the Sixth Circuit held that she had failed to make an additional showing of background circumstances to support an inference that the employer would discriminate against the majority group (heterosexuals), so the court affirmed the judgment. [4]

Judge Kethledge concurred in the majority opinion based on the Sixth Circuit's prior precedents recognizing the background circumstances test, but criticized the test and called for the Supreme Court to review the question. He noted that there was a circuit split, saying that five federal court of appeal circuits apply the test, seven do not, and two of those had expressly rejected it. [4]

Supreme Court

On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. [3]

Related Research Articles

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1991</span> US labor law passed in 1991

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award. It added provisions to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment. U.S. President George H. W. Bush had used his veto against the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1990. He feared racial quotas would be imposed but later approved the 1991 version of the bill.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.

<i>Canada (AG) v Mossop</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada (AG) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. The case is also significant as one of Justice L'Heureux-Dube's most famous dissents where she proposes an evolving model of the "family".

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case on United States labor law, concerning proof of disparate treatment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

<i>Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission</i> American legal case

Bushey v. New York State Civil Serv. Comm'n, 733 F.2d 220, 224 is a US labor law case from the Second Circuit applying the test for affirmative action from United Steelworkers v. Weber.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination.

In United States employment discrimination law, McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", that lacks direct evidence of discrimination. It was introduced by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green and Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine and has been elaborated on in subsequent cases.

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. 206 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), is the only United States Supreme Court case to address a sex-based affirmative action plan in the employment context. The case was brought by Paul Johnson, a male Santa Clara County Transportation Agency employee, who was passed over for a promotion in favor of Diane Joyce, a female employee who Johnson argued was less qualified. The Court found that the plan did not violate the protection against discrimination on the basis of sex in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case which ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

<i>Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College</i> U.S. court case

Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853 F.3d 339, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which the Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling made the Seventh Circuit the first federal appeals court to find that sexual orientation is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.

Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition of religious discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is constitutional. Appellee Arthur Frank Mayson worked for 16 years in an organization operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was terminated from employment when he "failed to qualify for a temple recommend, that is, a certificate that he is a member of the Church and eligible to attend its temples." He filed suit in district court, arguing that his firing violated discrimination on the basis of religion in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court agreed. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Title VII's exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition on religious discrimination, even in secular activities, did not violate the First Amendment.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

References

  1. 1 2 William R. Corbett, Reverse Discrimination: An Opportunity to Modernize and Improve Employment Discrimination Law , 79 U. Mia. L. Rev. 160(2024).
  2. 1 2 3 Patricia C. Collins (October 14, 2024). "US Supreme Court Takes On Reverse Discrimination Case". The Legal Intelligencer .
  3. 1 2 Jimmy Hoover (October 4, 2024). "Justices Will Consider Straight Woman's Reverse Discrimination Case Against Ohio". Law.com .
  4. 1 2 3 4 Lyndsay Flagg; Adam Primm (December 27, 2023). "Sixth Circuit Requires Additional "Background Circumstances" Evidence for Heterosexual Plaintiffs Seeking to Prove Reverse Sexual Orientation Discrimination". JD Supra.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.