On Wednesday the Supreme Court will consider the case of a straight woman who was allegedly discriminated at work over her sexuality.
Plaintiff Marlean Ames earned nothing but rave reviews for the first 15 years that she worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services starting in 20024. Then when she applied for a promotion in 2019, she was passed over and even demoted, according to ABC News.
“A gay woman got the job she’d applied for, while a gay man was assigned the job she once had,” the network notes. “Her supervisor at the time was also gay. Ames is a straight woman.”
Moreover, the gay man who took over her previous job “expressed to Ames an ‘impatient attitude towards climbing the ranks within the Department,’ ‘claim[ed] that he could manipulate people to get what he wanted on the basis of being a gay man,’ and ‘acknowledge[d] that he had ’been angling for Ames’s position for some time, stating in front of their coworkers that he wanted the PREA Administrator position,'” according to Ames’ suit.
After all this occurred, Ames filed a suit — the one just mentioned — alleging that she’d been discriminated against for being straight and that her boss’ actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Several lower courts dismissed her case, claiming she’d failed to meet the standard of proof required to demonstrate that a “member of a [so-called] majority group” was discriminated against.
The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals specifically rule that she hadn’t demonstrated “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
What is meant by “background circumstances”?
“[P]laintiffs must first present sufficient evidence of discrimination, but also requires an added burden for those individuals who are part of a majority group,” according to legal scholar Jonathan Turley.
“The test requires plaintiffs like Ames to provide additional ‘background circumstances’ to “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,” he wrote recently for his blog.
But in appealing the rulings, Ames made the case that this “background circumstances” requirement — which isn’t required when a minority such as a black person files a discrimination suit — is bull.
“If Ames were gay and the employees hired in preference of her were not, she would have established the elements necessary for her prima-facie case,” her attorneys argued. “But because Ames falls on the majority group side of the majority/minority fault line, she has no legal recourse.”
The Supreme Court must stop what is yet another attempt to judicially rewrite Title VII by ruling for Plaintiff in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The standard of proof required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination must be the same for everyone.
— Robyn Sanders (@Robyn_NSanders) February 25, 2025
Ohio, a rabidly leftist state, has pushed back by dubiously arguing that the “background circumstances” requirement doesn’t impose an undue burden on her or other people in the so-called “majority.”
“That the specific facts that give rise to a suspicion of discrimination differ from plaintiff to plaintiff does not mean that some parties carry a heavier prima facie burden than others,” Ohio said in its rebuttal brief. “It just reflects that the precise requirements of a prima facie case can vary depending on the context.”
Yeah, as in the context of one’s race and gender … which doesn’t seem fair or right. Yet the left’s apoplectic over Ames’ lawsuit because if the “background circumstances” rule gets overturned, it’d be much easier for whites, straight people, and men to sue for discrimination.
I hope the Ohio Department of Youth Services and the state of Ohio wins, because what Marlean Ames did is frivolous and wrong! I also hope Marlean Ames is ordered to repay the department and the state of Ohio’s costs for filing that frivolous lawsuit.
— Pinky Stanseski ️⚧️️She/her (@undergradwoman) February 26, 2025
“The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund urged the court to rule against Ames, saying a separate test to evaluate bias claims by majority groups is fitting because of the structural inequalities in the United States,” according to The Washington Post.
But to Ames, it’s a simple case of EQUALITY.
“Little did I know at the time that I filed that my burden was going to be harsher than somebody else’s burden to prove my case,” she told the Post in a statement. “I want people to try and understand that we’re trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just for a white woman in Ohio.”
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
V. Saxena is a staff writer with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University. Saxena also contributes to BizPac Review.
- Alleged assassin Luigi Mangione throws hissy fit in court, crying ‘double jeopardy’ - February 7, 2026
- ABC’s ‘The View’ facing FCC investigation in ‘equal time’ crackdown - February 7, 2026
- ‘Who’s buying access?’ GOP Oversight chair digging on Ilhan Omar’s husband’s shady business dealings - February 7, 2026
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.