Marlean Ames of Akron, Ohio, is not gay or a member of a racial minority.
But, please, she points out, don’t hold that against her, as she alleges her em- ployers have, as she takes her “reverse discrimina- tion” case all the way to the Supreme Court.
I wish her well. As an African American male, I strongly oppose unfair discrimination against any race, gender, or sexual preference, although I also know the charge can be very difficult to prove. Or, at least, it has been. Ames’ case aims to change that and considering how much the high court and official Washington have shifted to the right in recent years, she could hardly have chosen a more opportune time to try.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in her case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which has drawn a lot of attention since it could redefine how discrimination claims of all types are handled under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The core issue is whether so-called “majority-group plaintiffs,” legal language for white or heterosexual employees who allege discrimination, are so unusual that they must meet a higher standard of evidence than other plaintiffs in such cases. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund argued in a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that different standards were appropriate for majority and minority groups because minorities are historically the target of discrimination.
Before Ames’ suit went to trial, lower courts ruled against her, finding that she was unable to meet that standard. Ames’ lawyers argue that the standard is unconstitutional. So do, the Trump administration and other conservative legal groups. The Biden administration also filed an amicus brief in support of Ames’ position, as JURISTnews reported, “with former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar agreeing that the background circumstances requirement is not supported by the text of Title VII.”
On the other side were conservative groups like America First Legal, founded by prominent Trump aide Stephen Miller, which has campaigned nationwide against DEI programs as vigorously as his better-known campaign to tighten border restrictions. “It is highly suspect in this age of hiring based on ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’ ” he has said, that minority groups face more discrimination on the job than majority groups do.
That faint praise is a backhanded tribute to the success of DEI campaigns, even as many Americans still scratch their heads in confusion over what DEI really is.
Thank you for reading this Excerpt on scoopusamedia.com. To read the full version, and additional articles of interest, please subscribe to Scoop USA Media. Print subscriptions are $75.00 and online subscriptions (Print, Digital and Vizion) are $90. (52 weeks/1 year)
