On Feb. 26 the Supreme Court heard an oral argument from Marlean Ames, a woman claiming that she was treated unjustly at her job for being heterosexual. Ames had been working at the Ohio Department of Youth for twenty years when she was demoted in 2019, and her job was given to a gay man whom Ames claims was unqualified for the position. A lesbian woman was given a promotion Ames was seeking months earlier, and those two unrelated facts were all she needed to file suit for alleged discrimination in 2020.
She wasn’t taken seriously by the lower courts five years ago, but she’s back this year under a new presidency and while DEI laws are on shaky footing. Now she’s at the Supreme Court with a claim against the Ohio Department of Youth under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits sex-based discrimination in the workplace.
In a case of alleged “reverse discrimination” (discrimination against a person identifying with the majority rather than the minority), further evidence is needed to defend the claim. They must prove that the person(s) in the minority group did unfairly make a decision based on the fact that the individual affected by it was cisgender, straight, or white.
Ames argues that these “background circumstances” give an unfair advantage in court cases to individuals in minority groups, and makes it difficult for those in a majority group to file discrimination cases at all.
During the arguments on Wed. Feb. 26, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes” as quoted by NBC in an article on the subject.
While this is objectively true, the flaws of his statement lay in the past. Historically, members of the straight population have not been discriminated against. On the contrary, our entire country has been built on the discrimination and persecution of members of LGBTQ+ populations.
Since there is no history of discrimination against straight people, it is improbable for them to be discriminated against. Say someone in the minority did indeed discriminate against a straight person simply for being a part of the majority. It would still be impossible for them to do any legal harm, because again, our country is not built to discriminate against the majority, which is why DEI laws and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act exist in the first place.
Reverse discrimination, as a result, does not exist.
And yet, it is becoming clear that the Supreme Court justices are leaning towards siding with Ames. A reason for this is her lawyer, Xiao Wang, who claims that Ames is only calling for “equal justice under the law,” and wants to “protect the civil rights of all Americans.” This sounds objectively like a nice sentiment, but when you look closer, it’s really disguising a lot of disgusting hate towards the LGBTQ+ community and other minority groups.
This bipartisan support for the argument against Title VII is dangerous because the courts’ ruling could cause a dramatic and negative shift in cases of reverse discrimination claims and DEI laws across the board. It would make it easier for majority groups to bring forward reverse discrimination cases, which would simply allow for more discrimination of minority groups, achieving the exact opposite of “equality in the workplace.”
