Supreme Court Unanimously Backs Straight Woman in Landmark Workplace Discrimination Case

 Unanimous Supreme Court Sides with Straight Woman in Landmark Workplace Discrimination Case

June 5, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who claimed she was repeatedly denied promotions because she is straight. Ames alleged that her sexual orientation led to discriminatory treatment within the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she worked for several years.

Case Overview

• Plaintiff: Marlean Ames

• Defendant: Ohio Department of Youth Services

• Core Claim: Ames argued she was denied job opportunities in favor of gay candidates with lesser qualifications.

• Legal Basis: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

• Lower Court Ruling: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the employer, citing insufficient evidence.

• Supreme Court Outcome: Reversed in a unanimous 9-0 decision.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the Court, emphasizing that anti-discrimination laws apply symmetrically—protection is not limited to minority groups. “If discrimination occurs based on sexual orientation, it is unlawful whether the target is gay, straight, or otherwise,” Jackson wrote.

Broader Implications

The ruling reaffirms the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity falls under sex-based discrimination in Title VII. While Bostock focused on protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, Ames’s case extends the principle to straight individuals, underscoring that federal law applies universally.

Similar Cases and Precedents

1.  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)

   • Gerald Bostock, a gay man, was fired after joining a gay softball league.

   • Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in his favor, saying Title VII covers sexual orientation.

   • This case laid the groundwork for Ames's legal reasoning.

2.  Zarda v. Altitude Express (2020)

   • Donald Zarda was fired after revealing he was gay.

   • Joined with Bostock in Supreme Court arguments.

3.  Knapke v. PeopleConnect, Inc. (2022)

   • Though not related to Title VII, it raised questions about privacy and personal data discrimination in employment platforms.

4.  Terveer v. Billington (2014)

   • A federal court allowed a case by a gay man claiming religious and sexual orientation-based discrimination at the Library of Congress to proceed.

   • Established early legal recognition of bias based on sexual orientation.

Workplace Discrimination Trends in the U.S.

• The EEOC reports that in 2024, nearly 55,000 Title VII-related charges were filed.

• Sexual orientation discrimination complaints have risen steadily since Bostock.

• However, very few involve claims from straight employees.

Ames’s case brings attention to the broader principle: anti-discrimination law protects everyone, regardless of their identity.

International Context

Some countries have begun to adopt similar symmetrical interpretations of anti-discrimination protections:

• Canada: Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, protection applies to all groups, and courts have ruled in favor of both minority and majority claimants.

• United Kingdom: The Equality Act 2010 protects against “reverse discrimination,” though few cases have been successful.

• Australia: Some rulings under the Fair Work Act have similarly upheld that discrimination laws are not exclusive to minority identities.

Expert Reactions

• ACLU Legal Director David Cole: “This case reinforces that equal protection means exactly that—equality for all. The law does not favor one group over another.”

• Heritage Foundation Analyst Sarah Parshall Perry: “It’s a rare case where the Court affirms that protections swing both ways. That’s important in an increasingly polarized workplace.”

• EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows: “Employers must ensure that hiring and promotion decisions are made fairly and without bias, no matter who is involved.”

Final Thoughts

This unanimous ruling serves as a powerful reminder: federal civil rights laws are written in neutral terms. The Supreme Court’s message is clear—discrimination is unlawful no matter the target. This case may open the door for more claims involving lesser-discussed forms of workplace bias.

Questions to reflect on:

• Is your workplace policy written and applied with true neutrality?

• How do HR departments verify that decisions are free of implicit bias in every direction?

• Could this ruling encourage more inclusive legal interpretations in future identity-based conflicts?