US Supreme Court sides with Ohio woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
US court precedent covering some states, including Ohio, had required that members of majority groups show additional "background circumstances" to prove their case or evidence showing a pattern of discrimination. The court has now ruled that the standard of evidence for a discrimination claim should be the same, regardless of a person's identity.The court did not consider Ms Ames' original discrimination suit. Ms Ames had said she had positive performance reviews, but a promotion she sought was given to a lesbian. She was then demoted and her job was given to a gay man. In a lawsuit, she argued her employer had a preference for LGBTQ staff members and denied her opportunities because she identifies as straight. Lower courts ruled that she had failed to provide sufficient evidence of her claim, propelling the burden of proof question to the Supreme Court. At a February hearing, justices on both sides ideologically appeared sympathetic to her argument.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling that would gut key part of Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a lower-court ruling in a redistricting dispute in North Dakota that would gut a landmark federal civil rights law for millions of people. The justices indicated in an unsigned order that they are likely to take up a federal appeals court ruling that would eliminate the most common path people and civil rights groups use to sue under a key provision of the 60-year-old Voting Rights Act. The case could be argued as early as 2026 and decided by next summer. Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, would have rejected the appeal. The court also has a separate redistricting case over a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana. The justices heard arguments in March, but took the rare step of calling for a new round of arguments in their term that begins in October. They have yet to spell out what issues they want discussed. In the North Dakota case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The case went to trial in 2023, and a federal judge later ordered the use of a map of the area, including the reservations that led to the election last year of three Native Americans, all Democrats, to the Republican-supermajority Legislature. But in a 2-1 ruling issued in May, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the Justice Department can bring such lawsuits under the law's Section 2. The 8th Circuit also had ruled in an Arkansas case in 2023 that private individuals can't sue under the same provision. More than 90 percent of Section 2 cases have been brought through private enforcement, UCLA law professor Richard Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog. The 8th Circuit rulings conflict with decades of decisions by appellate courts that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2. The Supreme Court often will step in when appeals courts around the country come to different decisions on the same legal issue. The 8th Circuit covers seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections. ___
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Oregon adoption policy on LGBTQ acceptance violates free speech rights, court says
CHICAGO, July 24 (Reuters) - An Oregon woman seeking to adopt two children out of foster care will be allowed to move forward after a U.S. appeals court on Thursday said a state policy requiring adoptive parents to 'respect, accept and support' the children's gender expression and sexual orientation was unconstitutional. A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling blocking Jessica Bates from adopting because of the Oregon Department of Human Services' policy. The majority agreed with Bates, a devout Christian who said her beliefs prevent her from following the policy, finding that it violates Bates' rights to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, who was appointed by Republican President Donald Trump in his first term, joined with Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, in finding that the policy is unconstitutional. Oregon hasn't explained why other ways to protect LGBTQ children in foster care — instead of a policy that broadly bans Bates from adopting — aren't feasible, Bress wrote in the opinion. 'A state's general conception of the child's best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights,' he wrote. Bates was represented by lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian group that is routinely involved in high-profile court cases involving religious liberties. 'The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state's ideological crusade,' ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs said in a statement after the ruling. A spokesperson for Democratic Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, whose office defended the policy, said in a statement they are reviewing the ruling to determine their next steps. Bates filed the lawsuit in 2023 after her application to adopt a pair of siblings was denied when she told an administrator that she couldn't support the behavior of a hypothetical child whose preferred pronouns and identity don't match their biological sex. The district court rejected Bates' bid for an injunction against the policy, finding that Oregon has a strong interest in protecting the rights of LGBTQ children and the policy's regulation of free speech was precise enough. Circuit Judge Richard Clifton, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, dissented, saying that the policy regulates parental actions and does not impact speech beyond what is necessary. The case is Bates v. Pakseresht, case number 23-4169 in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. For Bates: Jonathan Scruggs, James Campbell, Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, John Bursch of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Rebekah Schultheiss of the Freedom Foundation For Oregon: Philip Thoennes, Denise Fjordbeck, Benjamin Gutman, Ellen Rosenblum of the Oregon Department of Justice
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Jailed traders mount bid to quash conviction after Supreme Court ruling
Four traders who were jailed for rate-rigging are to appeal their convictions after the Supreme Court quashed similar charges in a landmark case. Jay Merchant, Jonathan Mathew, Philippe Moryoussef and Christian Bittar are all seeking acquittal on appeal, lawyers for the four men said. It follows the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, two former investment bank traders, on charges of rigging Libor and Euribor respectively. The pair were found to have not received a fair trial because of how the jury was directed. The convictions came after an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in the aftermath of the financial crisis into claims that traders were manipulating key interest rate benchmarks by submitting false information to the market. Overall, the case led to nine convictions for fraud, with two traders pleading guilty and the rest found guilty by juries. Merchant and Mathew were ex-Barclays traders found guilty of conspiracy to defraud in 2016 after a three-month trial at Southwark Crown Court. The judge ruled that the pair had conspired to manipulate the London interbank offered rate, known as Libor, which was once used to price more than £270tn of financial products globally. Mathew was given a four-year sentence, while Merchant was given a six and a half years. Merchant, who was born in India, renounced his British citizenship and was deported in 2018. Moryoussef, also an ex-Barclays trader, and Christian Bittar, who formerly worked for Deutsche Bank, were found guilty of conspiracy to defraud in relation to the euro interbank offered rate, known in the City as Euribor. Moryoussef was sentenced in 2018 to eight years in jail, with the judge saying: 'Greed was clearly his principal motivation. Although his income was more than generous by anyone's standards, he thought he deserved more.' Bittar was sentenced to five years and four months. On Thursday night, a lawyer representing the group said: 'Following the Supreme Court's landmark decision yesterday to quash the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, all four of our clients now intend to appeal against their convictions.' Mr Hayes, who served five and a half years in prison for fraud, said after the Supreme Court ruling that all those jailed on similar charges to his should have their convictions overturned. The SFO, which was contacted for comment, said earlier this week: 'We have considered this judgment and the full circumstances carefully and determined it would not be in the public interest for us to seek a retrial.'
