Context:

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman, in a discrimination case against the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames claimed she was discriminated against in favor of gay candidates for job promotions due to her heterosexuality. The Court's decision, delivered by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, strikes down the Sixth Circuit's rule requiring a higher standard of evidence for majority groups in discrimination cases under Title VII. While the ruling eliminates the 'background circumstances' rule, it does not fully resolve Ames' case, as alternative arguments from Ohio still need consideration. The case had support from the Justice Department and various legal foundations, while the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund backed Ohio.

Dive Deeper:

• Marlean Ames, a heterosexual employee with the Ohio Department of Youth Services, claimed she faced discrimination when passed over for promotions in favor of gay candidates. Her case was based on alleged preferential treatment towards LGBTQ individuals at her workplace.

• The Supreme Court's unanimous decision addressed the Sixth Circuit's 'background circumstances' rule, which imposed a higher evidentiary standard on majority groups in discrimination cases. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson clarified that Title VII does not demand such a heightened standard.

• Justice Jackson's opinion emphasized that Ames met her prima facie burden of proof, as she was qualified for the promotions and faced demotion in favor of gay colleagues. This decision vacates the earlier judgment requiring special evidence from majority plaintiffs.

• Despite the ruling, the case is not fully resolved as the Court acknowledged Ohio's alternative arguments that could justify Ames' treatment. The Supreme Court left these issues for lower courts to address upon remand.

• The case received backing from the Justice Department, American First Legal Foundation, and Pacific Legal Foundation, while the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund supported Ohio's stance, highlighting the divided opinions on discrimination law interpretations.