Ames argued that she was denied a promotion within the Ohio department of youth services because she is heterosexual. A lesbian was hired for the job instead, and Ames was eventually demoted to a lower position with lower pay, with a gay man taking her previous role.
Some judges require that those in so-called reverse discrimination cases prove that an employer has a history of discriminating against a majority group. When the case appeared in front of the US circuit court of appeals, the judges initially rejected Ames’s claims, saying that she needed to show evidence that those within a minority group had made the discriminatory decisions. Those who were in charge of hiring and demoting Ames were also straight.
But the supreme court was willing to put this reasoning to a test, with an appetite to rethink what “reverse discrimination” actually means.
'Reverse discrimination' isn't a thing, for one problem I have with this.
For another, where's any actual evidence of ANY discrimination?
Shocking this was 9-0. Absolutely shocking.-greenman
This one of those very rare unanimous rulings. I'd be reluctant
Persecuted where? By whom? They love to be victims.
Trump is one of the whinyest victims ever to attain leadership. His skin is thinner than a slug, and he's just as slimy and repulsive. The slug leaves a trail of slime and trump leaves a trail of crime.
Isn't discrimination bad, regardless from where it comes?
I believe SCOTUS is gun shy to rule and prefers a lower court standing affirm the non decision they made.
You can look away from a painting, but you can't listen away from a symphony
on June 5, 2025, 11:18 am
