Supreme Court sides with woman claiming anti-straight job discrimination

[DUmpDiver]

BumRushDaShow (153,864 posts)
Thu Jun 5, 2025, 10:12 AM
13
Recommend
Supreme Court sides with woman claiming anti-straight job discrimination
Source: Washington Post

June 5, 2025 at 10:32 a.m. EDT


The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman who claimed she faced bias in the workplace after she was passed over for positions that went to gay colleagues. The decision will make it easier for members of majority groups to prove job discrimination claims.

The justices unanimously struck down a standard used in nearly half the nation’s federal circuits that required people who are White, male or not gay to meet a higher bar to prove workplace bias in certain cases than do individuals whose minority communities have traditionally faced discrimination.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote the opinion for the court, agreed with Marlean Ames, who argued that it was unconstitutional to have different standards for different groups of people. “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson wrote.

The Supreme Court decision revived Ames’s discrimination claim against the agency overseeing youth corrections facilities in Ohio, sending it back to the lower courts that had ruled she hadn’t met the higher bar of proof.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/05/workplace-discrimination-supreme-court-decision/

(bolding by me)

I'm not going to row over the responses but even though Jackson agreed and even wrote the court's opinion many DUmmies hate this decision. (Because they hate straight people and wypipo.)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143472031

[SVPete]

They know it flattens the discrimination lawsuit playing field for whites and straights who have experienced discrimination. It should be the no-brainer the 9-0 margin indicated, but Progs need to be able to discriminate against whites and straights to impose their racial and gender goals.

I've known for decades that I would be discriminated against for being a straight white male if I applied for certain types of jobs - specifically Federal and State of California - so I have not bothered to include government jobs in any of my past job searches. It has never been worth the mental stress.

[SVPete]

Here's the Replies index so the tone of the Replies can be seen:

Because of course they did.
Scrivener7
Yesterday
#1

The decision was unanimous.
Ocelot II
Yesterday
#2

I just updated the OP with the latest - this is what Justice Jackson wrote
BumRushDaShow
Yesterday
#3

The decision just sends it back for adjudication
mdbl
Yesterday
#4

Right. The headline is very misleading.
yardwork
Yesterday
#14

This message was self-deleted by its author
yardwork
Yesterday
#15

Please
angrychair
Yesterday
#19

We'll see how it plays out in the courts
mdbl
23 hrs ago
#21

This ruling
angrychair
22 hrs ago
#23

Fragile White Syndrome is a new condition
wolfie001
Yesterday
#5

Justice Jackson wrote the unanimous opinion for the Court. Does she suffer from this affliction as well?
tritsofme
Yesterday
#9

Oh great. Now I have to do some reading
wolfie001
3 hrs ago
#32

Fragile White Syndrome has been around since anti discrimination laws first began
yellowdogintexas
Yesterday
#13

I'm tired of being picked on because I'm white.
Hotler
4 hrs ago
#29

Hey! I'm white as well
wolfie001
3 hrs ago
#31

I'm right there with you. Another favorite is, "I'm tired of being picked on because of my liberal views.".
Hotler
3 hrs ago
#33

You too!
wolfie001
3 hrs ago
#34

it was a 9-0 decision. all it means is she CAN sue
moonshinegnomie
Yesterday
#6

I think DEI is officially DOA.
Mosby
Yesterday
#7

This is the correct decision.
WhiskeyGrinder
Yesterday
#8

Especially
angrychair
Yesterday
#20

So...uh...why do you suppose Justice Jackson, who wrote the opinion, joined by Kagan and Sotomayor
tritsofme
8 hrs ago
#24

If the shoe was on a minority's foot, would the SC even take the case?
wolfie001
3 hrs ago
#35

Apparently you dont understand the decision.
Callie1979
7 hrs ago
#26

Obviously.
Dr. Strange
23 hrs ago
#22

So far, all three SC rulings that I'm seeing today have been unanimous
Polybius
Yesterday
#10

So you can't take sides against gays either. Am I interpreting correctly?
twodogsbarking
Yesterday
#11

No. I'll let DU law experts explain, but the headline is misleading.
yardwork
Yesterday
#16

Ah, the details. The devil isn't even hiding.
twodogsbarking
Yesterday
#17

To clarify, I don't really think that gays are "anti-straight". They just aren't straight.
twodogsbarking
Yesterday
#12

Even the courts are ****ed
angrychair
Yesterday
#18

They still have to win the suit
Shrek
8 hrs ago
#25

This ruling
angrychair
5 hrs ago
#28

"literally" everything? Numerous lawsuits in the past prove otherwise.
Callie1979
7 hrs ago
#27

It's like we haven't lived through the last 250 years
angrychair
4 hrs ago
#30

Some are correct in saying that this ruling does not rule on the merits of the woman's claim. However, it overturned a dismissal and slapped down the basis of that dismissal. Regardless of whether she wins or not, that basis, majority-group plaintiffs having to meet a higher burden of proof, is gone.

From what I've read of the "facts" of the case, if they are facts supported by evidence, the woman looks likely to win.

[ADsOutburst]

Even the courts are ****ed

Imagine, after all the bizarre rulings courts have made in the past few months, thinking this ruling signifies that "the courts are ****ed".