‘Discrimination isn't exclusive to one race': Local attorney weighs in on new Supreme Court ruling

Yahoo

06-06-2025

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) — A unanimous Supreme Court decision Thursday makes it easier for people to pursue reverse discrimination lawsuits.
'The case kind of stands for the unexceptional proposition that racism and discrimination is not exclusive to one race or sexual orientation,' Mastando & Artrip Employment Attorney Eric Artrip said.
Tuberville raised $1.9 million on first day of governor bid, $3 million in first week
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a straight Ohio woman who claimed she was passed over for work opportunities because of her sexual orientation. She said she did not receive a promotion and was subsequently demoted from her position, with LGBTQ+ candidates, who Ames said were less qualified, filling both roles.
Marlean Ames has worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. Initially, lower courts decided against her, ruling that she did not have enough evidence to prove her case, thus driving it upwards.
The Supreme Court ruled in Ames' favor, saying that the lower courts requiring a higher burden of proof for plaintiffs in majority groups violates Title VII.
'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…In other words, courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII's antidiscrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs neednot do so. Such a rule is undoubtedly contrary to Title VII, and likely violates the Constitution, under which 'there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race.''
Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, Opinion of the Court in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs.
'There were three Judicial Circuits that required more evidence to establish discrimination if you were male or Caucasian,' Artrip said. 'The ruling today says that that is no longer valid or required.'
📲 to stay updated on the go. 📧 to have news sent to your inbox.
Artrip said about 85% of the cases he covers are workplace discrimination lawsuits. When it comes to that burden of proof, he said it's rare that employers are outwardly discriminatory. Thus, most evidence is circumstantial.
'If her supervisor had said, 'We're not going to promote you because we are looking for a gay female in that role,' that would be direct evidence of discrimination,' Artrip said. 'We don't get a lot of those. So, typically, what we do is we look at the circumstances surrounding the failure to promote or the decision to terminate, and say that was a motivating factor in that decision.'
While Artrip said the ruling simply states that everyone is protected under Title VII, he argues the ruling takes another swing at DEI.
'This decision may make it easier for Caucasians to sue for failure to promote or failure to hire,' Artrip said. 'It's really another blow to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.'
Several Supreme Court Justices wrote concurring opinions to Justice Jackson's opinion.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.