Supreme Court hears case of woman who alleges she experienced workplace discrimination over her sexual orientation—she is straight

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought forth by an Ohio woman who claimed that she was discriminated against at her work because she was straight. 

The suit was brought forth by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The section prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. The complaint was lodged after a lesbian woman received the promotion Ames, who worked at the department since 2004, was also pursuing, with Ames being demoted and her old position being given to a gay man, NBC News reported.

Lower courts had sided with the state agency, prompting Ames to bring her case to the Supreme Court, which the outlet said appeared to side with Ames’ case. 

Attorneys for Ames are challenging a precedent in which some lower courts have said that someone in a "majority group" has a high bar to meet for a discrimination case to move forward than someone from a minority group. Courts, including the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, have said that the plaintiff must present "background circumstances" to show that the defendant is "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority," wrote Ames’ lawyers.

In the Supreme Court on Wednesday, there was agreement, even from the lawyer representing Ohio officials, that the rule is not consistent with federal employment law. NBC News said that the Supreme Court decision could be a unanimous one, based on the questions asked by justices on both sides of the aisle, with the case likely being sent back to lower courts for further litigation.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, "it doesn't matter if she was gay or whether she was straight, she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII." Justice Neil Gorsuch said that a narrow ruling in Ames' favor would be a "wise course," adding that there was "radical agreement" in the courtroom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that there was "something suspicious" about what had happened with Ames.

Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser acknowledged that "everyone here agrees everyone should be treated equally" when pressed by the justices about his defense of the lower cour’s ruling in favor of Ohio.

America First Legal filed a brief in Ames' case citing other cases the conservative legal group has brought forth against companies like Starbucks and IBM alleging race and sex discrimination.

"Where applied, the 'background circumstances' rule is an atextual, unconstitutional, and arbitrary obstacle to the vindication of employees’ nondiscrimination rights," attorneys for the group wrote. Attorney for the former Biden administration, before leaving office, also filed a brief, stating that the "background circumstances" test should be done away with.

The state has argued that Ames has failed to show that she was discriminated against, and that she was demoted because new leadership in the agency wanted to restructure operations to prioritize sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system. Ames was reportedly seen as difficult to work with, the state claimed in court papers.