Supreme Court rules for straight woman in job discrimination suit
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The standard for proving workplace discrimination under the law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, 'does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.'
Advertisement
The case was brought by Marlean A. Ames, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees parts of the state's juvenile corrections system. After a decade there, in 2014 she became the administrator of a program addressing prison rape. Five years later, she applied for a promotion.
Her supervisors turned her down, saying she lacked vision and leadership skills. They eventually gave the position to a gay woman who had been at the department for a shorter time and, unlike Ames, lacked a college degree.
Advertisement
Not long after denying her the new position, her supervisors removed her from her existing job, telling her that they had concerns about her leadership and offering her a demotion that came with a substantial pay cut. She was replaced by a gay man with less seniority.
Ames sued under a federal civil rights law that forbids employment discrimination based on, among other characteristics, sex. (The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination for purposes of the civil rights law.)
The text of the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not draw distinctions based on whether the person claiming discrimination is a member of a majority group. But some courts have required plaintiffs from majority groups to prove an additional element if they lack direct evidence of discrimination: 'background circumstances that support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.'
Lower courts ruled against Ames on those grounds. The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, said she could have satisfied the 'background circumstances' requirement by showing that decisions about her employment were made by 'a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people)' or with statistical evidence. But the appeals court said Ames had provided neither kind of proof.
(In the trial court, she said the two supervisors who took negative employment actions against her were straight. On appeal, she said a gay supervisor had also played a role. The appeals court ruled that she had forfeited that argument by not making it sooner.)
Advertisement
Jackson wrote that the text of the civil rights law 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.'
Indeed, she wrote, '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.'
Conservative legal groups had championed Ames' case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039. The Biden administration also supported her argument, filing a brief supporting Ames.
Jackson's opinion was tightly focused and nine pages long. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a 14-page concurring opinion in which he mused about, among other things, the difficulty of defining identity in American society.
For instance, he wrote that it is not always easy to tell who is a member of the 'majority.'
'Women, for example, make up the majority in the United States as a whole, but not in some states and counties,' Thomas wrote. 'Similarly, women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.'
He added, quoting from the 2023 ruling rejecting race-conscious admissions, that ''defining the majority' is even more difficult in the context of race, as racial categories tend to be 'overbroad' and 'imprecise in many ways.''
'Even if courts could identify all the relevant racial groups and their boundaries, courts would still struggle to determine which racial groups make up a majority,' he continued. 'Black employees in Detroit, for example, make up a majority in their city, but not in Michigan or the United States at large.'
Advertisement
Religion poses similar problems, Thomas wrote. 'Americans have different views, for example, on whether Catholics are Christians,' he wrote.
Thomas also objected to the premise of the appeals court's decision, which he said had ignored the pervasiveness of diversity programs in the workplace.
'The 'background circumstances' rule is nonsensical for an additional reason: It requires courts to assume that only an 'unusual employer' would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority,' he wrote.
'But,' he added, quoting from a supporting brief, 'a number of this nation's largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups. American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans.'
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
In ‘Orgasmic Meditation' Case, Did a Zealous Media Strategy Backfire?
When they were convicted of forced labor conspiracy, two leaders of OneTaste, a lifestyle company devoted to the female orgasm, used a fierce public relations campaign to claim they were victims of the justice system. Then, that fervent advocacy helped land the women, Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz, in jail. After weeks of sordid testimony, the judge, Diane Gujarati, specifically cited the publicity effort before refusing to grant the defendants bail before their September sentencing, an uncommonly strict requirement for first-time, nonviolent criminals — and one that the government had not sought. Juda Engelmayer, the women's lead publicist, had written online posts that the judge found troubling, including one that featured a swastika superimposed over the Justice Department's logo. 'You think a swastika is helpful to the defendants?' Judge Gujarati asked Jennifer Bonjean, a lawyer for Ms. Daedone, at a hearing on June 10 in federal court in Brooklyn. Zealous media strategies surrounding celebrity trials have become common, with a blueprint created by President Trump's aggressive attacks on prosecutors, judges and plaintiffs. For the defendants in the 'orgasmic meditation' case, the strategy may have backfired, even though it won some conservative commentators to their side. 'It's treacherous, the relationship between the media and the clients and court,' said Arthur Aidala, a lawyer who has represented high-profile clients including Harvey Weinstein. 'You really need to proceed with caution.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
2 hours ago
US completes deportation of 8 men to South Sudan after weeks of legal wrangling
WASHINGTON -- Eight men deported from the United States in May and held under guard for weeks at an American military base in the African nation of Djibouti while their legal challenges played out in court have now reached the Trump administration's intended destination, war-torn South Sudan, a country the State Department advises against travel to due to 'crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.' The immigrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan arrived in South Sudan on Friday after a federal judge cleared the way for the Trump administration to relocate them in a case that had gone to the Supreme Court, which had permitted their removal from the U.S. Administration officials said the men had been convicted of violent crimes in the U.S. 'This was a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people,' said Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement Saturday announcing the men's arrival in South Sudan, a chaotic country in danger once more of collapsing into civil war. The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the transfer of the men who had been put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan. That meant that the South Sudan transfer could be completed after the flight was detoured to a base in Djibouti, where they men were held in a converted shipping container. The flight was detoured after a federal judge found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow the men a chance to challenge the removal. The court's conservative majority had ruled in June that immigration officials could quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. A flurry of court hearings on Independence Day resulted a temporary hold on the deportations while a judge evaluated a last-ditch appeal by the men's before the judge decided he was powerless to halt their removals and that the person best positioned to rule on the request was a Boston judge whose rulings led to the initial halt of the administration's effort to begin deportations to South Sudan. By Friday evening, that judge had issued a brief ruling concluding the Supreme Court had tied his hands. The men had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities cannot quickly send them back to their homelands.
