I imagine I’m not the only one who saw the scary headlines about the Supreme Court ruling on Ames v Ohio Dept of Youth Services, and felt a “Yep, this country is doomed” sinking feeling in my gut.
But then I read the details, and as is almost always the case with unanimous Supreme Court rulings, this case is narrower and more technical than the headlines imply.
In this case, Ames sued because she applied for a promotion, and was passed over for the job in favor of a person with less experience and less education. That person also happens to be gay.
Then, she was demoted from her current management position, and given a significant pay cut in the process.
Her management position then happened to be filled by another person who happened to be gay.
Ames believed she saw a pattern, so she sued for what people call “reverse discrimination” since she is straight.
Now, I personally believe it’s extremely unlikely she was passed over and demoted for being straight. What is far more likely, not knowing her personally, is the hiring managers determined the other individuals were simply a better fit for those roles, and she may have exhibited bad behavior or poor performance leading up to, and through, these events.
But that’s not why the Supreme Court ruled.
They ruled in favor of Ames because the lower courts rejected Ames because they held members of majority groups had to clear a higher bar to prove discrimination.
However, for better or worse, this position is explicitly not articulated in the Title VII law that regulates workplace discrimination.
This resulted in a clear-cut decision for the Supreme Court, which set aside partisan divides and prioritized the rule of law at a time when both the strength of the judicial branch, and the rule of law itself, is under attack by a tyrannical president.
So while I lament the myopic wording in the Title VII law in question in this case, I embrace any opportunity for the Supreme Court to speak with one voice.
Share this post