The Ames v. Ohio Supreme Court Case

Speaker 1 0:21

Hey, it's Mark and welcome back to the Employee Survival Guide for yet another thrilling episode of things that I find important for you. I the letter. I stands for individual and, in case you were mistaken, we are all individually created, equal and treated equally under the eyes of the law, especially in the workplace. There is zero preference for any protected group of employees minority or majority employees. If employers use DEI that's diversity, equity, inclusion they embrace illegal employment discrimination Period. End of story. On June 5th 2025, the US Supreme Court reminded us of this very important fundamental principle individual equality of our American employment experience.

Speaker 1 1:12

In the unanimous decision in Ames v Ohio Department of Youth Services, marlene Ames, a heterosexual woman, could maintain a case of reverse discrimination against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which operates the state's juvenile correction system. According to the court, in 2004, the agency hired Ames to serve as an executive secretary. Ames was eventually promoted to program administrator and, in 2019, applied for a newly created management position in the agency's Office of Quality and Improvement. Although the agency interviewed her for the position, it ultimately hired a different candidate, a lesbian woman, to fill the role. A few days after Ames interviewed for the management position, her supervisors removed her from her role as program administrator. She accepted a demotion to the secretarial role she had held when she first joined the agency, a move that resulted in a significant pay cut. The agency then hired a gay man to fill the vacant program administrator position. Position Ames subsequently filed this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management, promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation. End quote.

Speaker 1 2:32

The case is significant because the unanimous court reminds us that under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also called Title VII, we are all treated equally under the eyes of the law, not differentially and not preferentially because of our race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Based on historical background experiences of the protected group. The decision revolves a split of decisions among federal courts that members of the majority groups, in this case heterosexuals, were required to demonstrate additional proof that quote background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. End quote. This is a burden of proof not required of employees claiming sexual orientation discrimination, which is AIM's comparator group in her case. Ordinarily, an employee must assert a pre-mufascia case of employment discrimination by demonstrating an inference or direct evidence, or both, that the protected group characteristic, in this case heterosexual, was being used in the decision-making process against her.

Why "Reverse Discrimination" Is a Misnomer

Speaker 1 3:41

The unanimous court sent the case back to the trial court to continue the litigation into trial. It is extremely unlikely the case will proceed to trial because Ohio will settle the case. How do I know that the unanimous decision cast doubt on all of the legal arguments Ohio asserted, even ones that were not on appeal, and just so you know, if you don't argue matters on appeal, they're outside the scope of the appeal. So a little legal issue there. But Ohio proceeded to do that at the Supreme Court at oral argument, and so hence the case will soon settle. As Ohio lost all of its legal leverage in the case because Justice Jackson and the majority, or the unanimous court in the decision dispensed with all of the legal arguments that the state of Ohio had made the unanimous decision, the unanimous court, has sent the stern message again, albeit indirectly in this case, that diversity, equity and inclusion.

If In Doubt, Appeal Your Case

Speaker 1 4:42

Dei is fundamentally illegal in the workplace. Ames was heterosexual, yet her employer favored other employees because of their sexual orientation, which is illegal. Ames filed a reverse discrimination case under Title VII, but this title is a misnomer as there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. Title VII uses the phrase quote-unquote individual, denoting everyone is treated equally, not groups of minorities, and it also covers majorities, including all heterosexual individuals. Yes, history can confuse even federal courts into making judicial precedents beyond what Congress intended. The unanimous court is not engaging in judicial legislating but only interpreting the exact words that Congress put into the statute in 1964. The term individual is obvious in its plain meaning. The other important aspect of the Ames decision is a fundamental one. The other important aspect of the Ames decision is a fundamental one.

Speaker 1 5:40

If in doubt, appeal here. The state of Ohio fought Ames in the trial court, a federal court, and she lost. Ames filed an appeal and again lost at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. When the case finally reached the Supreme Court, the unanimous court, via Justice Jackson, was highly critical of the baseless nature of Ohio's legal argument, quoting Justice Jackson. In short, the Sixth Circuit expressly based its holding affirming summary judgment in favor of the agency on Ames' failure to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard. Ohio's attempt to recast the background circumstances rule as an application of the ordinary prima facie standard thus misses the mark by a mile. End quote. I do love that soundbite. In my opinion, ohio sought to push an agenda of DEI and supported that policy through the appeals process, only to be told it was an illegal agenda that discriminated against a heterosexual woman. So if in doubt, appeal, because eventually you might find a win.

Speaker 1 6:45

Employees should never, ever, assume that just because they are within a majority group they have no protection. This was never the case in the Title VII. The case reminds us today of our individuality in employment and what Title 7 plainly states. If you believe you are not receiving the same treatment, benefits, compensation etc. As compared to minority groups employees, you may have a case to argue that you are being subjected to intentional employment discrimination. Just like Ms Ames, you have rights like every other employee, and you need to assert them at the right time and manner. But a word of caution here Before you take action, consider the impact your internal or external complaint will have on your employment and how the employer will react to it. The complaint you make could quickly end your employment. This would result in an additional claim of retaliation, which is easy to prove. So that's kind of the scripted aspect of the episode.

Speaker 1 7:47

Just to give you some further background, we have been filing in the midst of the DEI movement for the last several years what's called reverse discrimination cases. Again, there's nothing in law in Title VII that says the phrase reverse discrimination. It just means that if you are part of the majority group of any group, you're entitled to the same rights to file suit. And it's not just Title VII. When you have a decision like this from the Supreme Court, it applies to, let's say, 42 USC 1981, which is a race statute. Again, race is not specific as to what color of skin you are, it's just simply race. So it's a wide-reaching decision that the courts and the employment lawyers.

Speaker 1 8:30

And now you understand that individually, you have rights, you have rights. It's something that most people either confused, didn't understand because our media or social culture were so hyper-focused on this aspect of DEI and that movement. Even before that there was still this misnomer aspect that, well, I don't have rights because I'm heterosexual or I'm white, but in fact you do. That's the point of the decision I stands for. Individual and individuals are accreted equally. So if you didn't pick this lesson up on civics class back in grade school, you got it now. There's no preference for anybody in our country, especially in the employment setting, in our country, especially in the employment setting. So just understanding that gets you to avoid the confusion that is propagated by social media posts or news media. Again, everyone has the same equal rights, stands in the same equal footing as everyone else, and what you do with that is you look at how you are treated differently than people who are your comparator to determine are you being treated similarly?

The Broader Impact of the Ames Decision

Speaker 1 9:45

So in this case, ms Ames took a stand. You heard the small fact pattern of how she was treated. Clearly, everybody hearing that story says well, wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. I mean, why was she demoted first of all? She'd been there for a while. So it's the courts taking a stand and it's not a political move. It's simply following what the and the court's not political, it's just and some people may disagree with me, but they're just following what the law says. It says, I mean the word individual is put in Title VII. Putting in Title VII.

Speaker 1 10:21

If I read the statute to you today, you would hear the words individual, not preference, groups of DEI preference and that issue or confusion that majority employees are entitled to rights. Is true. That decision affirms that we were filing claims on behalf of individuals claiming quote-unquote reverse discrimination to challenge DEI policies. But those cases simply went away because the employers also began to dispense with many. Many employers began to get rid of the DEI programs. Some have held them onto them. They've changed it now to diversity, inclusion and got the word equality out. But if there's any preference, the lawyers are looking for that preference in any way, shape or form and you should be looking for it.

Speaker 1 11:06

If you find you're at the wrong end of a stick, like of DEI policy that clearly was in a play at Ms Ames' employment, if you have a situation like hers now you know what you can do with it. I mean you can cite Ames, you know, to your employer and saying wait a minute, you know I'm getting the shaft here. I'm being discriminated against because I'm heterosexual or I'm white or whatever. That other category is. That's not minority, and I don't mean minority in the sense of being a minority by race, just minority category of people. So if you have a religion case and the majority is you know I don't know Christians and the other ones the minority is Muslim, you know. Just you get it. So use of the word majority. Minority is a very larger category. In this case for Ms Ames it's heterosexual.

Recognizing and Addressing Workplace Discrimination

Speaker 1 11:55

So you know, what I try to do for you is give you the straight and narrow of what the case law and what the decisions and statutes do do. It's confusing these days because there's so much input data and there's so much being thrown at you that you really the storyline or the message of what the issue is in its straight fashion gets confused, manipulated in some way, and so I try to dispense with that stuff and say very simply it's the individual is entitled to rights just like everyone else, and that's what the Ames decision really stands for. Yes, it is the court's pronouncement regarding DEI. It doesn't say that, by the way, in the show notes I'll put the link to the actual decision. You can read it.

Speaker 1 12:43

It does not discuss the issue of DEI at all, but you have to read between the lines of the decision to understand it that a policy was in effect in Ohio and the court gave preferential rights. I use that word preferential, that's not correct. It clarified that Ms Ames was entitled, just like everyone else, to rights against discrimination based upon her set of sexual nature, against favoritism given to individuals of sexual orientation that were being preferred to by the state of Ohio in that department. So that's the gist of the decision there. Pretty narrow decision on that overall, but it's pretty wide-reaching, pretty substantive decision. Hopefully it helps you understand that, yes, everyone is created equally and everybody's entitled to the equal rights at work. No one's entitled to more than anybody else. If you see it, say something. So there you go. So just hope you enjoyed that one. There's also a blog post of the same topic on the website as well. Have a great week. Talk to you soon.