Employee Survival Guide® - S6 Ep.127: Everyone is Equal in Employment Law, No Exceptions

Episode Date: June 10, 2025

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.The landmark Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services fundamentally reshapes our understanding of workplace discrimination protections. Through a rare unanimous ruling, the Court has powerfully affirmed that every individual—regardless of majority or minority status—stands equal under employment law.What makes this case particularly significant is how it dismantles misconceptions about "reverse discrimination." As we explore in this episode, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act never distinguished between majority and minority groups—it protects individuals. When Marlene Ames, a heterosexual woman, found herself denied promotion and subsequently demoted while LGBTQ+ candidates were favored, she challenged this discrimination all the way to the Supreme Court. Despite losing at lower court levels, her persistence ultimately vindicated a principle too often misunderstood: discrimination against anyone based on protected characteristics is illegal, full stop.The Court's decision, delivered through Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected the additional burden that some courts had placed on majority plaintiffs to prove "background circumstances" suggesting their employer discriminates against majority groups. This ruling has profound implications for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in American workplaces. While the Court didn't explicitly address DEI, the message is clear—policies that favor certain groups at the expense of others cross legal boundaries. For employees who believe they face discrimination despite belonging to a majority group, this decision provides significant legal backing.Have you experienced workplace discrimination but hesitated to speak up because you belong to a majority group? Understanding your rights is the first step toward workplace equality. Subscribe to the Employee Survival Guide for more insights that empower you to navigate complex workplace dynamics and protect your rights regardless of your background. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Hey, it's Mark here and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about and a lot more. Hey, it's Mark and welcome back to the Employee Survival Guide for yet another thrilling episode of Things That I Find Important for You. I, the letter I, stands for individual. And in case you were mistaken, we are all individually created equal and treated equally under the eyes of the law, especially in the workplace.

There is zero preference for any protected group of employees, minority or majority employees. If employers use DEI, that's diversity, equity, inclusion, they embrace illegal employment discrimination. Period. End of story. On June 5th, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reminded us of this very important fundamental principle, individual equality, of our American employment experience in the unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The court held that Marlene Ames, a heterosexual

woman, could maintain a case of reverse discrimination against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which operates the state's juvenile correction system. According to the court, in 2004, the agency hired Ames to serve as an executive secretary. Ames was eventually promoted to program administrator and in 2019, applied for a newly created management position in the agency's Office of Quality and Improvement. Although the agency interviewed her for the position, it ultimately hired a different candidate, a lesbian woman, to fill the role.

A few days after Ames interviewed for the management position, her supervisors removed her from her role as program administrator. She accepted a demotion to the secretarial role she had held when she first joined the agency, a move that resulted in a significant pay cut. The agency then hired a gay man to fill the vacant program administrator position. Ames subsequently filed this lawsuit against the agency under Title 7, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation." The case is significant because the unanimous court reminds us that under the 1964 Civil

Rights Act, also called Title VII, we are all treated equally under the eyes of the law, not differentially and not preferentially because of our race, sex, sexual orientation, etc., based on historical background experiences of the protected group. The decision revolves a split of decisions among federal courts that members of the majority groups, in this case heterosexuals, were required to demonstrate additional proof that, quote, background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority, end quote. This is a burden of proof not required of employees claiming sexual orientation discrimination,

which is Aims' comparator group in her case. Ordinarily, an employee must assert a premium fashion case of employment discrimination by demonstrating an inference or direct evidence, or both, that the protected group characteristic, in this case heterosexual, was being used in the decision-making process against her. The unanimous court sent the case back to the trial court to continue the litigation into trial. It is extremely unlikely the case will proceed to trial because Ohio will settle the case.

How do I know that? The unanimous decision cast doubt on all of the legal arguments Ohio asserted, even ones that were not on appeal. And just so you know, if you don't argue matters on appeal, they're outside the scope of the appeal. So little legal issue there. But Ohio proceeded to do that at the Supreme Court at oral argument.

And so hence the case will soon settle as Ohio lost all of its legal leverage in the case because Justice Jackson and the majority, or the unanimous court, and the decision dispensed with all of its legal leverage in the case, because Justice Jackson and the majority, or the unanimous court, and the decision dispensed with all of the legal arguments that the state of Ohio had made. The unanimous court has sent the stern message again, albeit indirectly in this case,

that diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI, is fundamentally illegal in the workplace. Ames was heterosexual, yet her employer favored other employees because of their sexual orientation, which is illegal. Ames filed a reverse discrimination case under Title VII, but this title is a misnomer as there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. Title VII uses the phrase, quote unquote, individual, denoting everyone is treated equally, not groups of minorities, and it also covers majorities, including all heterosexual individuals.

Yes, history can confuse even federal courts into making judicial precedents beyond what Congress intended. The unanimous court is not engaging in judicial legislating, but only interpreting the exact words that Congress put into the statute in 1964. The term individual is obvious in its plain meaning. The other important aspect of the Ames decision is a fundamental one. If in doubt, appeal.

Here the state of Ohio fought Ames in the trial court, federal court, and she lost. Ames filed an appeal and again lost at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. When the case finally reached the Supreme Court, the unanimous court, via Justice Jackson, was highly critical of the baseless nature of Ohio's legal argument.

Quoting Justice Jackson, "'In short, the Sixth Circuit expressly based its holding affirming summary judgment in favor of the agency on Ames' failure to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard. Ohio's attempt to recast the background circumstances rule as an application of the ordinary prima facie standard thus misses the mark by a mile." End quote. I do love that soundbite. In my opinion, Ohio sought to push an agenda of DEI and supported that policy through the appeals process, only to be told it was an illegal agenda

that discriminated against a heterosexual woman. So if in doubt, appeal, because eventually you might find a win. Employees should never ever assume that just because they are within a majority group, they have no protection. This was never the case in the Title VII. The case reminds us today of our individuality in employment and what Title VII plainly states.

If you believe you are not receiving the same treatment, benefits, compensation, et cetera, as compared to minority group employees, you may have a case to argue that you are being subjected to intentional employment discrimination, just like Ms. Ames. You have rights like every other employee and you need to assert them at the right time and manner,

but a word of caution here. Before you take action, consider the impact your internal or external complaint will have on your employment and how the employer will react to it. The complaint you make could quickly end your employment. This would result in an additional claim of retaliation, which is easy to prove. So that's the scripted aspect of the episode. Just to give you some further background, we have been filing in the midst of the DEI movement for the last several years what's called reverse discrimination cases.

Again, there's nothing in law in Title VII that says the phrase reverse discrimination. It just means that if you are part of the majority group, of any group, you're entitled to the same rights to file suit. And it's not just Title VII. When you have a decision like this from the Supreme Court, it applies to, let's say, 42 USC 1981, which is a race statute. Again, race is not specific as to

what color of skin you are. It's just simply race. So it's a wide reaching decision that the courts and the employment lawyers, and now you, understand that individually you have rights. It's something that most people either confused, didn't understand because our media or social culture were so hyper-focused on this aspect of DEI

and that movement, even before that, there was still this misnomer aspect that, well, I don't have rights because I'm heterosexual or I'm white, but in fact, you do. That's the point of the decision. I stands for individual, and individuals are accredited equally.

So if you didn't pick this lesson up on civics, civics class back in grade school, you got it now. Um, there's no preference for anybody in our country in, especially in the employment setting. Uh, so just understanding that gets you, uh, to, uh, uh, avoid the confusion that is propagated by social media posts or news media. Again, everyone has the same equal rights stands and the same equal footing as everyone else.

And what you do with that is you look at how you are treated differently than people who are your comparator to determine are you being treated similarly. So in this case, Ms Miss Ames took a stand, you heard the small fact pattern of how she was treated, clearly everybody hearing that story says, well wait a minute, that doesn't make sense, I mean, why was she demoted, first of all?

She'd been there for a while. So it's the courts taking a stand, and it's not a political move, it's simply following what the, and the court's not political, it's not a political move. It's simply following what the courts not political It's just and some people may disagree with me, but they're just following what the law says It says I mean the word individual is putting in title 7 if I read the statute to that to you today You you would hear the words individual not

preference groups of you know, DEI preference, so not preference groups of DEI preference. So that issue or confusion that majority employees are entitled to rights is true. That decision affirms that we were filing claims on behalf of individuals claiming quote unquote reverse discrimination to challenge DEI policies, but those cases simply went away

because the employers also began to dispense with, many of the employers began to get rid of the DEI programs. Some have held them onto them. They've changed it now to diversity inclusion and got the word equality out. But if there's any preference, the lawyers are looking for that preference in any way, shape, or form, and you should be looking for it

if you find you're at the wrong end of a stick, like of DEI policy that clearly was in a play at Ms. Ames' employment. If you have a situation like hers, now you know what you can do with it. I mean, you can cite Ames, you know, to your employer and saying, wait a minute, you know, I'm getting the shaft here, I'm being discriminated against because I'm heterosexual or I'm white or whatever that other category is that's not minority

and I don't mean minority in the sense of being a Minority by race just minority category of people So if you have a religion case and the majority is you know, I know, Christians and the other one's the minorities, Muslim, just you get it. So use of the word majority, minority is a very larger category. In this case for Ms. Ames, it's heterosexual. So what I try to do for you is give you the straight

and narrow of what the case law and what the decisions and statutes do, it's confusing these days because there's so much input data and there's so much being thrown at you that you really, the storyline or the message of what the issue is in its straight fashion gets confused, manipulated in some way. And so I tried to dispense with that stuff

and say, very simply, you know, it's the individual is entitled to rights, just like everyone else. And that's what the Aims decision really stands for. Yes, it is the court's pronouncement regarding DEI. It doesn't say that, by the way, but in the show notes, I'll put the link to the actual decision, you can read it.

It does not discuss the issue of DEI at all, but you have to read between the lines of the decision to understand it, that a policy was in effect in Ohio and the court gave preferential rights. I used that word preferential, that's not correct. It clarified that Ms. Ames was entitled, just like everyone else, to rights against discrimination based upon her set of sexual nature, against favoritism given to individuals

of sexual orientation that were being preferred to by the state of Ohio and that department. So that's the gist of the decision there. Pretty narrow decision on that overall, but it's pretty wide reaching, pretty substantive decision. Hopefully it helps you understand that yes, everyone is created equally,

and everybody's entitled to the equal rights at work. No one's entitled to more than anybody else. If you see it, say something. So there you go. So just hope you enjoyed that one. There's also a blog post with the same topic on the website as well. Have a great week, talk to you soon.

If you like the Employee Survival Guide, I'd really encourage you to leave a review. We try really hard to produce information to you that's informative, that's timely, that you can actually use and solve problems on your own and at your employment. So if you'd like to leave a review anywhere you listen to our podcast, please do so. And leave five stars because anything less than five is really not as good, right? I'll keep it up. I'll keep the standards up. I'll keep the information flowing at you.

If you'd like to send me an email and ask me a question, I'll actually review it and post it on there. You can send it to mcaru at capclaw.com.