S6 Ep.127: Everyone is Equal in Employment Law, No Exceptions

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.

The landmark Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services fundamentally reshapes our understanding of workplace discrimination protections. Through a rare unanimous ruling, the Court has powerfully affirmed that every individual—regardless of majority or minority status—stands equal under employment law.

What makes this case particularly significant is how it dismantles misconceptions about "reverse discrimination." As we explore in this episode, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act never distinguished between majority and minority groups—it protects individuals. When Marlene Ames, a heterosexual woman, found herself denied promotion and subsequently demoted while LGBTQ+ candidates were favored, she challenged this discrimination all the way to the Supreme Court. Despite losing at lower court levels, her persistence ultimately vindicated a principle too often misunderstood: discrimination against anyone based on protected characteristics is illegal, full stop.

The Court's decision, delivered through Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected the additional burden that some courts had placed on majority plaintiffs to prove "background circumstances" suggesting their employer discriminates against majority groups. This ruling has profound implications for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in American workplaces. While the Court didn't explicitly address DEI, the message is clear—policies that favor certain groups at the expense of others cross legal boundaries. For employees who believe they face discrimination despite belonging to a majority group, this decision provides significant legal backing.

Have you experienced workplace discrimination but hesitated to speak up because you belong to a majority group? Understanding your rights is the first step toward workplace equality. Subscribe to the Employee Survival Guide for more insights that empower you to navigate complex workplace dynamics and protect your rights regardless of your background.

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.

For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.

Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, it's Mark and welcome back to the Employee
Survival Guide for yet anotherthrilling episode of things that
I find important for you.
I the letter.
I stands for individual and, incase you were mistaken, we are
all individually created, equaland treated equally under the

(00:24):
eyes of the law, especially inthe workplace.
There is zero preference forany protected group of employees
minority or majority employees.
If employers use DEI that'sdiversity, equity, inclusion
they embrace illegal employmentdiscrimination Period.
End of story.
On June 5th 2025, the USSupreme Court reminded us of

(00:47):
this very important fundamentalprinciple individual equality of
our American employmentexperience.
In the unanimous decision inAmes v Ohio Department of Youth
Services, marlene Ames, aheterosexual woman, could
maintain a case of reversediscrimination against her
employer, the Ohio Department ofYouth Services, which operates

(01:09):
the state's juvenile correctionsystem.
According to the court, in 2004, the agency hired Ames to serve
as an executive secretary.
Ames was eventually promoted toprogram administrator and, in
2019, applied for a newlycreated management position in
the agency's Office of Qualityand Improvement.

(01:30):
Although the agency interviewedher for the position, it
ultimately hired a differentcandidate, a lesbian woman, to
fill the role.
A few days after Amesinterviewed for the management
position, her supervisorsremoved her from her role as
program administrator.
She accepted a demotion to thesecretarial role she had held

(01:50):
when she first joined the agency, a move that resulted in a
significant pay cut.
The agency then hired a gay manto fill the vacant program
administrator position.
Position Ames subsequentlyfiled this lawsuit against the
agency under Title VII, allegingthat she was denied the
management, promotion anddemoted because of her sexual

(02:10):
orientation.
End quote.
The case is significant becausethe unanimous court reminds us
that under the 1964 Civil RightsAct, also called Title VII, we
are all treated equally underthe eyes of the law, not
differentially and notpreferentially because of our
race, sex, sexual orientation,etc.

(02:31):
Based on historical backgroundexperiences of the protected
group.
The decision revolves a splitof decisions among federal
courts that members of themajority groups, in this case
heterosexuals, were required todemonstrate additional proof
that quote backgroundcircumstances to support the
suspicion that the defendant isthat unusual employer who

(02:53):
discriminates against themajority.
End quote.
This is a burden of proof notrequired of employees claiming
sexual orientationdiscrimination, which is AIM's
comparator group in her case.
Ordinarily, an employee mustassert a pre-mufascia case of
employment discrimination bydemonstrating an inference or
direct evidence, or both, thatthe protected group

(03:16):
characteristic, in this caseheterosexual, was being used in
the decision-making processagainst her.
The unanimous court sent thecase back to the trial court to
continue the litigation intotrial.
It is extremely unlikely thecase will proceed to trial
because Ohio will settle thecase.
How do I know that theunanimous decision cast doubt on

(03:38):
all of the legal arguments Ohioasserted, even ones that were
not on appeal, and just so youknow, if you don't argue matters
on appeal, they're outside thescope of the appeal.
So a little legal issue there.
But Ohio proceeded to do thatat the Supreme Court at oral
argument, and so hence the casewill soon settle.

(04:00):
As Ohio lost all of its legalleverage in the case because
Justice Jackson and the majority, or the unanimous court in the
decision dispensed with all ofthe legal arguments that the
state of Ohio had made theunanimous decision, the
unanimous court, has sent thestern message again, albeit
indirectly in this case, thatdiversity, equity and inclusion.

(04:23):
Dei is fundamentally illegal inthe workplace.
Ames was heterosexual, yet heremployer favored other employees
because of their sexualorientation, which is illegal.
Ames filed a reversediscrimination case under Title
VII, but this title is amisnomer as there is no such
thing as reverse discrimination.
Title VII uses the phrasequote-unquote individual,

(04:48):
denoting everyone is treatedequally, not groups of
minorities, and it also coversmajorities, including all
heterosexual individuals.
Yes, history can confuse evenfederal courts into making
judicial precedents beyond whatCongress intended.
The unanimous court is notengaging in judicial legislating
but only interpreting the exactwords that Congress put into

(05:10):
the statute in 1964.
The term individual is obviousin its plain meaning.
The other important aspect ofthe Ames decision is a
fundamental one.
The other important aspect ofthe Ames decision is a
fundamental one.
If in doubt, appeal here.
The state of Ohio fought Amesin the trial court, a federal
court, and she lost.
Ames filed an appeal and againlost at the Sixth Circuit Court

(05:32):
of Appeals.
When the case finally reachedthe Supreme Court, the unanimous
court, via Justice Jackson, washighly critical of the baseless
nature of Ohio's legal argument, quoting Justice Jackson.
In short, the Sixth Circuitexpressly based its holding
affirming summary judgment infavor of the agency on Ames'
failure to satisfy a heightenedevidentiary standard.

(05:54):
Ohio's attempt to recast thebackground circumstances rule as
an application of the ordinaryprima facie standard thus misses
the mark by a mile.
End quote.
I do love that soundbite.
In my opinion, ohio sought topush an agenda of DEI and
supported that policy throughthe appeals process, only to be

(06:16):
told it was an illegal agendathat discriminated against a
heterosexual woman.
So if in doubt, appeal, becauseeventually you might find a win
.
Employees should never, ever,assume that just because they
are within a majority group theyhave no protection.
This was never the case in theTitle VII.
The case reminds us today ofour individuality in employment

(06:39):
and what Title 7 plainly states.
If you believe you are notreceiving the same treatment,
benefits, compensation etc.
As compared to minority groupsemployees, you may have a case
to argue that you are beingsubjected to intentional
employment discrimination.
Just like Ms Ames, you haverights like every other employee
, and you need to assert them atthe right time and manner.

(07:01):
But a word of caution hereBefore you take action, consider
the impact your internal orexternal complaint will have on
your employment and how theemployer will react to it.
The complaint you make couldquickly end your employment.
This would result in anadditional claim of retaliation,
which is easy to prove.
So that's kind of the scriptedaspect of the episode.

(07:29):
Just to give you some furtherbackground, we have been filing
in the midst of the DEI movementfor the last several years
what's called reversediscrimination cases.
Again, there's nothing in lawin Title VII that says the
phrase reverse discrimination.
It just means that if you arepart of the majority group of
any group, you're entitled tothe same rights to file suit.

(07:51):
And it's not just Title VII.
When you have a decision likethis from the Supreme Court, it
applies to, let's say, 42 USC1981, which is a race statute.
Again, race is not specific asto what color of skin you are,
it's just simply race.
So it's a wide-reachingdecision that the courts and the
employment lawyers.

(08:11):
And now you understand thatindividually, you have rights,
you have rights.
It's something that most peopleeither confused, didn't
understand because our media orsocial culture were so
hyper-focused on this aspect ofDEI and that movement.
Even before that there wasstill this misnomer aspect that,

(08:33):
well, I don't have rightsbecause I'm heterosexual or I'm
white, but in fact you do.
That's the point of thedecision I stands for.
Individual and individuals areaccreted equally.
So if you didn't pick thislesson up on civics class back
in grade school, you got it now.
There's no preference foranybody in our country,

(08:57):
especially in the employmentsetting, in our country,
especially in the employmentsetting.
So just understanding that getsyou to avoid the confusion that
is propagated by social mediaposts or news media.
Again, everyone has the sameequal rights, stands in the same
equal footing as everyone else,and what you do with that is

(09:18):
you look at how you are treateddifferently than people who are
your comparator to determine areyou being treated similarly?
So in this case, ms Ames took astand.
You heard the small factpattern of how she was treated.
Clearly, everybody hearing thatstory says well, wait a minute,
that doesn't make sense.
I mean, why was she demotedfirst of all?
She'd been there for a while.

(09:39):
So it's the courts taking astand and it's not a political
move.
It's simply following what theand the court's not political,
it's just and some people maydisagree with me, but they're
just following what the law says.
It says, I mean the wordindividual is put in Title VII.
Putting in Title VII.

(10:02):
If I read the statute to youtoday, you would hear the words
individual, not preference,groups of DEI preference and
that issue or confusion thatmajority employees are entitled
to rights.
Is true.
That decision affirms that wewere filing claims on behalf of
individuals claimingquote-unquote reverse
discrimination to challenge DEIpolicies.
But those cases simply wentaway because the employers also

(10:26):
began to dispense with many.
Many employers began to get ridof the DEI programs.
Some have held them onto them.
They've changed it now todiversity, inclusion and got the
word equality out.
But if there's any preference,the lawyers are looking for that
preference in any way, shape orform and you should be looking

(10:47):
for it.
If you find you're at the wrongend of a stick, like of DEI
policy that clearly was in aplay at Ms Ames' employment, if
you have a situation like hersnow you know what you can do
with it.
I mean you can cite Ames, youknow, to your employer and
saying wait a minute, you knowI'm getting the shaft here.
I'm being discriminated againstbecause I'm heterosexual or I'm

(11:09):
white or whatever.
That other category is.
That's not minority, and Idon't mean minority in the sense
of being a minority by race,just minority category of people
.
So if you have a religion caseand the majority is you know I
don't know Christians and theother ones the minority is
Muslim, you know.
Just you get it.
So use of the word majority.

(11:31):
Minority is a very largercategory.
In this case for Ms Ames it'sheterosexual.
So you know, what I try to dofor you is give you the straight
and narrow of what the case lawand what the decisions and
statutes do do.

(11:51):
It's confusing these daysbecause there's so much input
data and there's so much beingthrown at you that you really
the storyline or the message ofwhat the issue is in its
straight fashion gets confused,manipulated in some way, and so
I try to dispense with thatstuff and say very simply it's
the individual is entitled torights just like everyone else,
and that's what the Amesdecision really stands for.

(12:14):
Yes, it is the court'spronouncement 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.
It does not discuss the issue ofDEI at all, but you have to
read between the lines of thedecision to understand it that a
policy was in effect in Ohioand the court gave preferential

(12:39):
rights.
I use that word preferential,that's not correct.
It clarified that Ms Ames wasentitled, just like everyone
else, to rights againstdiscrimination based upon her
set of sexual nature, againstfavoritism given to individuals
of sexual orientation that werebeing preferred to by the state
of Ohio in that department.

(13:00):
So that's the gist of thedecision there.
Pretty narrow decision on thatoverall, but it's pretty
wide-reaching, prettysubstantive decision.
Hopefully it helps youunderstand that, yes, everyone
is created equally andeverybody's entitled to the
equal rights at work.
No one's entitled to more thananybody else.

(13:23):
If you see it, say something.
So there you go.
So just hope you enjoyed thatone.
There's also a blog post of thesame topic on the website as
well.
Have a great week.
Talk to you soon.