Discrimination: Expanding the definition

Marlean Ames sits in her lawyer's office

This decision clears the way for a "flood of 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits."

(Image credit: Maddie McGarvey / For The Washington Post / Getty Images)

"Reverse discrimination" lawsuits will now be "easier to bring," said Noah Feldman in Bloomberg. The Supreme Court last week ruled unanimously in favor of a woman who argued she was discriminated against for being straight. In Ames v. Ohio, Marlean Ames claimed her gay boss at the Ohio Department of Youth Services promoted a lesbian with less experience over her. She was later demoted and replaced by a gay man with less seniority. Ames argued these actions constituted discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but an appeals court said that as a member of a majority group—straight people—she faced a higher standard to prove her claim. The Supreme Court disagreed. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's first Black female justice, explained in the opinion that the law doesn't vary "based on the identity of the person alleging discrimination." The ruling might "seem like a win for conservatives," but by affirming that all forms of bias violate Title VII, it's a victory for "the rule of law."

Actually, the ruling makes it clear there is "no such thing" as "reverse discrimination," said Charles C.W. Cooke in National Review. Liberals think "only members of the majority can be racist or bigoted," insisting that whites and heterosexuals are so privileged they can't suffer discrimination. But Title VII doesn't "prohibit discrimination in a particular direction." It simply prohibits discrimination, "irrespective of which immutable characteristics" an individual exhibits. DEI is "almost universally loathed by normal people," and the court just caught up to public opinion.

This decision was "correct in theory," said Elie Mystal in The Nation, but it clears "the way for a flood of 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits." Emboldened by President Trump, white people are blaming anti-white discrimination "every time a non-white person is hired or promoted." This ruling "is like hanging an 'Open for Grievances' sign on every federal courthouse." But the clarified standard "does not make it easier for white or straight plaintiffs to win discrimination claims," said Robyn Nicole Sanders in Slate. It merely establishes the same standard for illegal discrimination against any person on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or other protected traits. It's tempting to see every ruling "through the lens of gain or loss, progressive or conservative," but we shouldn't "let our fears of bad faith obscure a rare moment of doctrinal clarity."