The commencement of "Pride Month" has been marked by a significant legal victory for traditional values.
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in favor of Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who contended that her employer discriminated against her by denying her a promotion and subsequently demoting her due to her sexual orientation.
Ames, who has been with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, argued that despite her commendable performance reviews, a lesbian supervisor bypassed her for a promotion, opting instead to hire a lesbian candidate.
Following this, Ames was demoted, and her previous position was filled by a gay man. When Ames initially took her case to the lower courts, she encountered a legal hurdle known as "background circumstances."
As reported by the Daily Caller, the Court of Appeals noted, "Ames is heterosexual . . . which means she must make a showing in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case." This "background circumstances" rule imposes an additional burden of proof on members of majority groups, such as heterosexuals, whites, or Christians, when claiming discrimination. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether Ames needed to provide this extra evidence.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the court, stated, "The Sixth Circuits background circumstances rule cannot be squared with the text of Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] or our longstanding precedents." She further clarified, "Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group."
The existence of such a rule is perplexing, and it is particularly noteworthy that Justice Jackson, often seen as a liberal voice on the court, ruled in this manner. Her decision comes despite her previous dissent in cases involving race-based college admissions and her criticism of her colleagues' rulings on immigration and gender-related issues.
In a recent dissent, Jackson expressed her disapproval of the court's decision to strike down race-based college admission policies, writing, "With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces, colorblindness for all by legal fiat." She also criticized a decision allowing the deportation of migrants under a Biden-era policy and has defended "gender affirming care" for minors, controversially suggesting that prohibiting such procedures might constitute sex discrimination.
Despite her previous positions, Jackson's ruling in favor of Ames signifies a departure from the notion of "reverse discrimination." Discrimination, whether against heterosexuals, whites, or Christians, remains discrimination in its purest form. Even Justice Jackson, with her liberal leanings, could not overlook this fundamental truth.
Login