June 11, 2025 • 10 mins
Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal discusses SCOTUS' decision to side with an Ohio woman who was passed over and demoted in favor of two employees who were gay
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Real quick.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
If you're a fan of Wendy's and a fan of
cheese its, okay, today's your lucky day. They have announced,
starting next month, Baconator flavored cheese its.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Oh my goodness, Baconator flavored crackers.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Oh the smoky, cheesy, beefy goodness of the Baconator is
now going to be in a crunchy cheese it cracker.
They can also define an offensive lineman smoky, beefy cheesy.
I just thought i'd throw that out there as we
jump on with Jeremy Rosenthal on the Legacy Retirement Group
dot com phone line. Jeremy is our Dallas based attorney
(00:40):
at Texas Defense Firm dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
You win for a Baconator flavored cheese it, man.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Always are you kidding me? Let's do it?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Man?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
You know what what what's like for? If it's not
for doing this? I mean, who needs a heart?
Speaker 2 (00:59):
It's the it's the the mash up, the combo you
didn't know you needed, dude. I don't know what to
tell you, but I don't know what you what do
you watch that down with?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Oh gosh, I don't know. I was listening to what
you all were saying about the the scams about clicking
things and uh, I mean just no out there, just
a p s A to everybody. The I R S.
Doesn't use the word cops, right, the cops are gonna
get you and the I and they don't take iTunes
gift cards either. Just just just that that's not a thing,
(01:31):
at least not yet. So uh yeah, always always always
uh measured once, measure twice, cut one.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
That's it. Great advice, Yeah, great advice. The reason and
thank you for coming on.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
This is not your normal scheduled time or day, but
we appreciate you jumping on with us. So I wanted
to get your thoughts on this story. Actually, I think
I think went a little underreported. Uh, the story of
Marlene Ames from here in Ohio. She sued the Ohio
Department of Youth Services, where she had worked for twenty years.
Not only Jeremy, was she passed over for a promotion
(02:07):
by a gay woman LGBTQ woman, which, okay, people get
passed over for promotions all the time. Maybe the other
candidate was better, more experienced, whatever, But then to add
insult to injury, not only was she passed over for
the promotion by a gay person, she was then demoted
and then her old position was filled by a gay man.
(02:29):
So she lawyered up and she actually won. Her case
got to the Supreme Court a unanimous decision, which is
pretty remarkable, a nine to zero decision, And this really
sort of changes the definition and the way that we
will look at discrimination in this country.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I believe you ever have you ever worked on a
discrimination case?
Speaker 3 (02:49):
I haven't actually in law school, That's kind of what
I wanted to do until I found out I could
get so rich to be doing criminal defense work. Right,
So I was put on this planet to make a
big deal out of little things, and employment discrimination was
kind of one of those. The interesting thing to consider
here in nineteen sixty four, that's when the Civil Rights
(03:13):
Act was passed, So anytime you hear Title six, Title seven,
I think Title nine wasn't until the early nineteen seventies,
but those are the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act,
and when Congress enacted them, they were what is called
remedial by nature, meaning that these were specifically designed to
(03:35):
remedy segregation, to remedy Jim Crow, to remedy slavery, and
Congress said, okay, courts, when you are discussing race discrimination,
you shall liberally construe it to help affected parties, meaning
(03:56):
meaning we're going to we're going to right the wrongs
of Jim Crow and racial discrimination in this country. So
when courts have not really taken a color blind approach
to this, they're not necessarily wrong. They're they've kind of
been following what Congress has been doing. And what this
turned into by the year twenty twenty five, right sixty
(04:17):
years later, what this turned into was Okay, i feel
like I'm being discriminated against because I'm straight, and I
feel like and now I've got extra things I have
to prove in court that a homosexual person doesn't have
to prove. And the court basically said, okay, enough is enough.
(04:38):
We've got to sort of start making this a little
more color blind, and we're not going to make her
jump through additional hoops that we wouldn't otherwise make everybody do.
So I think you're exactly right. This will level the
playing field for reverse discrimination cases. You could always bring
a reverse discrimination case, you just had to prove a
(04:59):
lot more to get there.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Yeah, essentially, the courts had this legal standard. I'm just
rephrasing what you said that the legal standard was that
there was a higher bar for people who are heterosexual,
white or male than you know, females or minorities or
you know, the people who were gay, that they didn't
have as much a burden of proof, if you will.
(05:22):
So now it levels the playing field. And it's interesting
that you use the term reverse discrimination. You know, there's
been a lot made of that term as well. Basically,
I think that that implies that discrimination can only go
one way, and then if it goes the other way,
it's a big gets reverse isn't discrimination just discrimination? If
(05:42):
you've got some immutable characteristic, whether you're to your skin
color or your gender, then you can be discriminated against.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
But it can go both ways.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
You're a lawyer in disguise, immutable characteristic.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
How about that?
Speaker 3 (05:58):
You just quoted foot thirty nine from a legal opinion
back in nineteen seventy two.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Man, good for you.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
If I didn't, If I didn't, if I didn't blow
off college, I would have loved My mom would have
loved for me to be an attorney.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
But I'm a talk show host instead. But either way, so.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Yeah, the notion of discrimination and reverse discrimination, I mean,
it's it's all just discrimination, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
It's that's in a lot of ways. It's redundant, isn't it.
I mean, you could have ended the sentence at or
at discrimination, because ultimately you're sort of saying the same thing.
And I suppose it's just more conventional wisdom that these
are typically And again going back to nineteen sixty four
(06:43):
when this was passed, back then, this America was different
than it was today. Have we have we paid for
all of the sins of this country? I don't know
that we ever will. And I think the Court has
to look at twenty twenty five and I think.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
They have to.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Look at this plaintiff and decide. And the courts that
led up to this ruled against her, and they were
following previous precedent. And the Supreme Court again in nine
zero language, Kateenji Brown Jackson was the one that wrote
this opinion, and they made very quick work of it.
That the Supreme Court session is ending, so we're about
(07:27):
to get a whole bunch of opinions. So of course,
so this is one of the easy ones that they
knocked out. They all agreed on it. I can't fathom
that that happens a whole lot. Kidding, but it does.
And I think the court agrees with exactly what you said.
Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Do you think this will bring on open up the
floodgates now from more discrimination cases brought by straight white
men who maybe felt that they couldn't before because they
didn't have a fighting chance in court because of their identity,
their skin color, their gender. Do you think this will
open up some floodgates and set this president for.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
The sake of lawyers everywhere. Yeah, just just look we
got I mean, look, the fact that that gay marriage
got legalized was just a that is a lawyer stimulus
package because now we can do gay divorce. And I
mean right, this is this is extra money for lawyers.
So I say, anytime we can open up the floodgates
(08:26):
for anything, let's do it. I don't, I don't know
that that's the case. I really don't. People who are
going to get with And one of a few of
my first jobs out of law school were doing employment discrimination,
working for for smaller firms. We get a ton of
phone calls from people who are leading the rebels. They're
(08:49):
the chake of our Jacob no, no, Caesar Chavez. Chagavar
was a communist. Caesar Chavez was the union leader right
the work right, you know, of the movie theater, and
they were gonna they're not giving me the right shift,
and I stood up for my co workers, Cindy, and
they fired me. And I want to bring a lawsuit. Well, okay,
(09:11):
they can do that, and they should do that, because
a movie theater doesn't need somebody leading the revolution. They
need somebody to shut up and sweep.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
So people like that are going to go to the
courthouse or they're going to try. There are a lot
of barriers between that type of incident and the courthouse.
You have to go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
There are a lot of trip wires. Court states. Texas
is still extremely business friendly, and it is very hard
(09:43):
to sue a business successfully here. There's always going to
be people with a chip on their shoulder. There's always
going to be people who are upset that are going
to want to the run of the courthouse. It's still
hard and it still kind of takes that personality.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
To do that.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
So I don't know that this is going to bring
the end of the planet. As everybody likes to say, well,
you're going to open up the floodgates. I don't see
that happening, but I do see some people able to
seek justice rightfully. So and that's kind of what the
Supreme Court said.
Real quick.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
If you're a fan of Wendy's and a fan of
cheese its, okay, today's your lucky day. They have announced,
starting next month, Baconator flavored cheese its.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Oh my goodness, Baconator flavored crackers.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Oh the smoky, cheesy, beefy goodness of the Baconator is
now going to be in a crunchy cheese it cracker.
They can also define an offensive lineman smoky, beefy cheesy.
I just thought i'd throw that out there as we
jump on with Jeremy Rosenthal on the Legacy Retirement Group
dot com phone line. Jeremy is our Dallas based attorney
(00:40):
at Texas Defense Firm dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
You win for a Baconator flavored cheese it, man.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Always are you kidding me? Let's do it?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Man?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
You know what what what's like for? If it's not
for doing this? I mean, who needs a heart?
Speaker 2 (00:59):
It's the it's the the mash up, the combo you
didn't know you needed, dude. I don't know what to
tell you, but I don't know what you what do
you watch that down with?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
Oh gosh, I don't know. I was listening to what
you all were saying about the the scams about clicking
things and uh, I mean just no out there, just
a p s A to everybody. The I R S.
Doesn't use the word cops, right, the cops are gonna
get you and the I and they don't take iTunes
gift cards either. Just just just that that's not a thing,
(01:31):
at least not yet. So uh yeah, always always always
uh measured once, measure twice, cut one.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
That's it. Great advice, Yeah, great advice. The reason and
thank you for coming on.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
This is not your normal scheduled time or day, but
we appreciate you jumping on with us. So I wanted
to get your thoughts on this story. Actually, I think
I think went a little underreported. Uh, the story of
Marlene Ames from here in Ohio. She sued the Ohio
Department of Youth Services, where she had worked for twenty years.
Not only Jeremy, was she passed over for a promotion
(02:07):
by a gay woman LGBTQ woman, which, okay, people get
passed over for promotions all the time. Maybe the other
candidate was better, more experienced, whatever, But then to add
insult to injury, not only was she passed over for
the promotion by a gay person, she was then demoted
and then her old position was filled by a gay man.
(02:29):
So she lawyered up and she actually won. Her case
got to the Supreme Court a unanimous decision, which is
pretty remarkable, a nine to zero decision, And this really
sort of changes the definition and the way that we
will look at discrimination in this country.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I believe you ever have you ever worked on a
discrimination case?
Speaker 3 (02:49):
I haven't actually in law school, That's kind of what
I wanted to do until I found out I could
get so rich to be doing criminal defense work. Right,
So I was put on this planet to make a
big deal out of little things, and employment discrimination was
kind of one of those. The interesting thing to consider
here in nineteen sixty four, that's when the Civil Rights
(03:13):
Act was passed, So anytime you hear Title six, Title seven,
I think Title nine wasn't until the early nineteen seventies,
but those are the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act,
and when Congress enacted them, they were what is called
remedial by nature, meaning that these were specifically designed to
(03:35):
remedy segregation, to remedy Jim Crow, to remedy slavery, and
Congress said, okay, courts, when you are discussing race discrimination,
you shall liberally construe it to help affected parties, meaning
(03:56):
meaning we're going to we're going to right the wrongs
of Jim Crow and racial discrimination in this country. So
when courts have not really taken a color blind approach
to this, they're not necessarily wrong. They're they've kind of
been following what Congress has been doing. And what this
turned into by the year twenty twenty five, right sixty
(04:17):
years later, what this turned into was Okay, i feel
like I'm being discriminated against because I'm straight, and I
feel like and now I've got extra things I have
to prove in court that a homosexual person doesn't have
to prove. And the court basically said, okay, enough is enough.
(04:38):
We've got to sort of start making this a little
more color blind, and we're not going to make her
jump through additional hoops that we wouldn't otherwise make everybody do.
So I think you're exactly right. This will level the
playing field for reverse discrimination cases. You could always bring
a reverse discrimination case, you just had to prove a
(04:59):
lot more to get there.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Yeah, essentially, the courts had this legal standard. I'm just
rephrasing what you said that the legal standard was that
there was a higher bar for people who are heterosexual,
white or male than you know, females or minorities or
you know, the people who were gay, that they didn't
have as much a burden of proof, if you will.
(05:22):
So now it levels the playing field. And it's interesting
that you use the term reverse discrimination. You know, there's
been a lot made of that term as well. Basically,
I think that that implies that discrimination can only go
one way, and then if it goes the other way,
it's a big gets reverse isn't discrimination just discrimination? If
(05:42):
you've got some immutable characteristic, whether you're to your skin
color or your gender, then you can be discriminated against.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
But it can go both ways.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
You're a lawyer in disguise, immutable characteristic.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
How about that?
Speaker 3 (05:58):
You just quoted foot thirty nine from a legal opinion
back in nineteen seventy two.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Man, good for you.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
If I didn't, If I didn't, if I didn't blow
off college, I would have loved My mom would have
loved for me to be an attorney.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
But I'm a talk show host instead. But either way, so.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Yeah, the notion of discrimination and reverse discrimination, I mean,
it's it's all just discrimination, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
It's that's in a lot of ways. It's redundant, isn't it.
I mean, you could have ended the sentence at or
at discrimination, because ultimately you're sort of saying the same thing.
And I suppose it's just more conventional wisdom that these
are typically And again going back to nineteen sixty four
(06:43):
when this was passed, back then, this America was different
than it was today. Have we have we paid for
all of the sins of this country? I don't know
that we ever will. And I think the Court has
to look at twenty twenty five and I think.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
They have to.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Look at this plaintiff and decide. And the courts that
led up to this ruled against her, and they were
following previous precedent. And the Supreme Court again in nine
zero language, Kateenji Brown Jackson was the one that wrote
this opinion, and they made very quick work of it.
That the Supreme Court session is ending, so we're about
(07:27):
to get a whole bunch of opinions. So of course,
so this is one of the easy ones that they
knocked out. They all agreed on it. I can't fathom
that that happens a whole lot. Kidding, but it does.
And I think the court agrees with exactly what you said.
Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Do you think this will bring on open up the
floodgates now from more discrimination cases brought by straight white
men who maybe felt that they couldn't before because they
didn't have a fighting chance in court because of their identity,
their skin color, their gender. Do you think this will
open up some floodgates and set this president for.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
The sake of lawyers everywhere. Yeah, just just look we
got I mean, look, the fact that that gay marriage
got legalized was just a that is a lawyer stimulus
package because now we can do gay divorce. And I
mean right, this is this is extra money for lawyers.
So I say, anytime we can open up the floodgates
(08:26):
for anything, let's do it. I don't, I don't know
that that's the case. I really don't. People who are
going to get with And one of a few of
my first jobs out of law school were doing employment discrimination,
working for for smaller firms. We get a ton of
phone calls from people who are leading the rebels. They're
(08:49):
the chake of our Jacob no, no, Caesar Chavez. Chagavar
was a communist. Caesar Chavez was the union leader right
the work right, you know, of the movie theater, and
they were gonna they're not giving me the right shift,
and I stood up for my co workers, Cindy, and
they fired me. And I want to bring a lawsuit. Well, okay,
(09:11):
they can do that, and they should do that, because
a movie theater doesn't need somebody leading the revolution. They
need somebody to shut up and sweep.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
So people like that are going to go to the
courthouse or they're going to try. There are a lot
of barriers between that type of incident and the courthouse.
You have to go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
There are a lot of trip wires. Court states. Texas
is still extremely business friendly, and it is very hard
(09:43):
to sue a business successfully here. There's always going to
be people with a chip on their shoulder. There's always
going to be people who are upset that are going
to want to the run of the courthouse. It's still
hard and it still kind of takes that personality.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
To do that.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
So I don't know that this is going to bring
the end of the planet. As everybody likes to say, well,
you're going to open up the floodgates. I don't see
that happening, but I do see some people able to
seek justice rightfully. So and that's kind of what the
Supreme Court said.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.