In Ohio, United States, a woman has filed a case in the Supreme Court claiming she was overlooked for promotions in favour of gay candidates, in what she calls a case of "reverse discrimination." 

Advertisment

Her case comes at a politically charged time, as US President Donald Trump pushes for the rollback of diversity and inclusion initiatives put in place under the Biden administration.

Supreme Court poised to rule in favour

Reports suggest that the US Supreme Court on Wednesday (Feb 26) seemed poised to side with the woman identified as 60-year-old Marlean Ames, an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services.

Advertisment

Also read | Trump slams European Union, claims it was formed to 'screw' US, announces 25% tariffs; Bloc responds

Ames, 60 is asking the court to reinstate her lawsuit under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

The heterosexual woman argues that lower courts unfairly dismissed her claim based on precedent that members of majority groups must meet a higher threshold to prove workplace bias. The US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in its ruling said that she failed to show "background circumstances" that could show that the state agency is "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority".

Advertisment

That requirement, Ames contends, is unconstitutional and places an undue burden on members of majority groups bringing job discrimination cases.

Also read | Texas records first fatality owing to measles outbreak while RFK Jr downplays concerns

Justices in "radical agreement"

During arguments made by the woman's lawyer Xiao Wang, justices across ideological lines appeared sympathetic to Ames' case. 

"We're in radical agreement today," quipped Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of six conservatives on the bench.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed her lawyer, Xiao Wang, for clarity: "So all you want for this case is a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it's because you're gay or because you're straight, is prohibited?"

"That's right, your honour," Wang replied.

Ames, he added, was simply seeking "four words on the side of this building -- equal justice under law." 

Also read | Trump slams European Union, claims it was formed to 'screw' US, announces 25% tariffs; Bloc responds

"At bottom, all Ms Ames is asking for is equal justice under law, not more justice, but certainly not less, and certainly not less because of the colour of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion," he added.

State pushes back

Ohio's Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser defended the state, arguing there was no evidence Ames lost out due to her sexual orientation.

"She could not establish that anybody was motivated by sexual orientation or even knew her sexual orientation," he said, adding that it was unclear whether hiring officials even knew the candidates' sexual orientations.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor saw cause for concern. 

"She was a 20-year employee with great reviews," Sotomayor noted. "All of a sudden, she's not hired, and someone's hired who's gay, doesn't have her level of college experience and didn't even want the job." A ruling is expected this summer.

(With inputs from agencies)