The Supreme Court is taking up the case of an Ohio woman who claims she suffered sex discrimination in her employment because she is straight.
The justices on Friday agreed to review an appellate ruling that upheld the dismissal of the discrimination lawsuit filed by the woman, Marlean Ames, against the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Arguments probably will take place early next year.
Ames, who has worked for the department for 20 years, contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.
The tail end of the article:
People alleging workplace bias have to show “background circumstances,” including that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.
The appeals court noted that Ames didn’t provide any such circumstances.
So, in other words, SCOTUS took the case to invent something entirely unrelated in order to rollback 40 years of progress. Got it. I’ll look forward in dread for the outcome in 9 months.
LGBTQ+ will only legally be allowed to promote straight people going forward.
Or they’ll make the correct decision that there is no basis, and they’ll get praised for making a rational decision (in a 7-2 ruling).
Republicans really do get praised for almost doing the bare minimum.
Republicans really do get praised for almost doing the bare minimum.
It’s gonna blow your mind when you realize it’s not just Republicans it happens to.
This supreme court has shown time and time again that they don’t actually care about evidence. They’ll just make it up.
They also don’t care about what the American people want or need. They just do whatever they are paid to do (bribes), or whatever they feel like.
More likely that she was demoted for being a bigot than for being heterosexual.
This reeks of old people/Karen privilege. Just hoist yourself up by your bootstraps, print out a resume, shake the managers hand and ask for a job.
Key detail:
The question for the justices is that the 6th Circuit and several other appeals courts apply a higher standard when members of a majority group make discrimination claims.
So the SCOTUS won’t be deciding whether she was discriminated against, they will be deciding how courts should decide whether she was discriminated against.
That’s what they do. They’re an appeals court, they don’t decide on facts of the case.
Exactly. People forget this about our appellate courts too often. For every can they hear there will be much more lower trial courts hear and will try and relate to the higher court’s case. An appellate court trying to solve every case in front of them in the most fair way ensures more cases will end unfairly.
Corporate has asked me to tell the difference between these two pictures…
this is a call for all athiests, muslims, hindus, buddhists, satanists and the like should to apply at christian run businesses and be open about their religion (or lack thereof) at the interviewing. Then sue when they aren’t hired, or f they are hired and get fired for not participating in the in-offtce christian pagentry.
This won’t work because christofascists don’t give a fuck about being hypocrites. In their minds, they’re on a divine mission from God to impose their religion on everyone else. Nothing is off limits when you’re being commanded to do it by God himself.
That’s the point tho. If a homophobe sets prescedent, use that to your advantage. Thru the years the SC wouldn’t hear certain cases because they didn’t want to set precedent
she suffered sex discrimination in her employment because she is straight.
That’s not sex discrimination. Sex discrimination is when you’re discriminated against because of your sex - you know, like how they didn’t let women be doctors or lawyers or run marathons and stuff. This is (possibly) orientation discrimination, which is also absolutely a thing, but I feel like she should lose simply because she’s claiming the wrong thing.
Orientation discrimination has been ruled to be sex discrimination. This gives protection to people in states where orientation is not itself a protected class.
The rationale is that if there is discrimination against a woman for dating other women, that is sex discrimination because a man would not face similar consequences for dating a woman.
Yeah, and the justice who wrote that opinion was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and it’s a great read.
I guess if they rule in her favor, they are also ruling that LGBTQ people cannot face the same type of discrimination in the workplace.
Yes. It should work both ways. Heterosexuals should be protected as much as bisexuals, pansexuals, homosexuals, etc. That’s the way the law is intended.
Whether her claims have merit is another story. I am very skeptical, but it is at least possible in principle.
Yeah or she just failed to prove she was discriminated against
I honestly cannot imagine a competent employee being demoted. I can imagine positions in Youth Services that might (might) be better filled by someone gay, like gay youth programs, the “it gets better” is more convincing from someone for whom it actually got better, for instance.
In Ohio, though?
You may have a limited imagination in this regard. Pettiness can be a strong motivator when it comes to office politics. And competence is often enough a triggering factor.
Senior staff will smother perceived competition in order to maintain the stability of their job position.
Not saying it is so here, but it definitely is a common enough situation in general.
Maybe she’s just got shit vibes
The hetero victimhood is strong in this one.
If she can demonstrate that she was denied a promotion or was demoted based on her sex or her orientation then she should win. Discrimination is against the law.
Although if she’s conflating her orientation class with her just being a fucking asshole she should lose.
How would one show that in a court room?
You normally dont have to wait long when thats the case.
Doesn’t really matter, either she can prove her case or she can’t. If she can’t, no one has to prove it was because she was an asshole.
I disagree with your assessment. Just because someone can’t demonstrate something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I’ll wait to see how it plays out.
Just because someone can’t demonstrate something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
That’s exactly my point about whether or not she’s an asshole. Moreover, the outcome of the legal proceedings don’t depend on whether anyone can prove it.
But the outcome of the legal proceedings are entirely dependent on whether she can prove her assertion.
You disagree with my assessment because you are misinterpreting it.
if she’s conflating her orientation class with her just being a fucking asshole she should lose.
How would one show that in a court room?
no one is required to do so for this court room event, and hence:
Doesn’t really matter, either she can prove her case or she can’t.
One of the biggest things I learned when I started working in the legal field is that the only justice you’ll get is the justice you can prove. Things like this might be true, but if you can’t prove it, you’ll get no justice for it.
Is that fair? No. But the system we created is based on the assumption that people are going to be wrongfully imprisoned or charged for actions that they didn’t commit simply because the government wants them imprisoned. We designed it that way because that used to happen often in other countries, and we didn’t want that to happen here. So, we created rules to avoid wrongful imprisonment by the government without finding a way to also protect victims who may not have enough evidence to prove their victimization.
I’m not saying that what this woman is asserting happened or didn’t happen. I have no idea what went down. I also don’t know how we fix the system. People are wrongfully imprisoned, victims don’t receive justice, etc., but this is how the system is designed, so whether or not it’s true, she is required to demonstrate it, or she will receive no justice.
It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for 'em
With this Supreme Court… it might.
