In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court is reconsidering the decision in a lawsuit filed by a woman from Ohio who accused her workplace of denying her a promotion based on the fact that she is heterosexual, with the Supreme Court justices unanimously agreeing to revive the case.
For context, on June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Marlean Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that the decision against Ames, who had reportedly been denied a promotion by the Ohio Department of Youth Services and was later demoted. In both cases, according to Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the role in question was given to a gay candidate.
In a publicly issued statement, Justice Jackson explained that the court was pushing back against the decision made by an appeals court that denied Marlean Ames’ lawsuit based on “background circumstances.” The judge wrote, “We hold that this additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute,” adding, “Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand for application of the proper prima facie standard.”
Furthermore, Justice Jackson explained that Ames’ complaint had previously been dropped wrongfully, writing, “The court then recounted how Ames was qualified, had been denied a promotion in favor of a gay candidate, and was later demoted in favor of another gay candidate — evidence that would ordinarily satisfy her prima facie burden — before it specifically faulted Ames for failing to make the ‘requisite showing of ‘background circumstances.”
Next, Jackson concluded that while the appeals court had accused Ames of “failure to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard,” the Supreme Court had determined that “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.”
Moreover, Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, saying that he wanted to “highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks.” He added, “Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts.”
In addition, Justice Thomas criticized the use of the “background circumstances” rule, which he described as having been “correctly rejected by the Court today,” adding that the three-step test that the court has long used in discrimination cases, the McDonnell Douglas framework, “lacks any basis in the text of” federal employment law, which, the judge argued, would make it possible to overrule in a case like Ames’.
Importantly, the initial ruling against Ames, which occurred in December 2023, had determined that Ames had not shown “a pattern of discrimination against homosexuals,” clarifying that the only information that could be interpreted as evidence of prejudice was “her own demotion and the denial of the Bureau Chief position.”
Featured image credit: Shutterstock