Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court tackles straight woman's 'reverse' discrimination case
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-tackles-straight-110444480.html ^ | 2/20/25 | Andrew Chung

Posted on 02/20/2025 4:30:31 PM PST by CFW

(Reuters) - Marlean Ames received numerous promotions and good evaluations over the years working in Ohio's youth corrections system, so when she was denied a promotion and demoted in 2019 with a $40,000 pay cut she said she felt "shocked and hurt and humiliated."

But, according to Ames, that was not all. She had a gay supervisor at the time, she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and she was demoted in favor of a gay man - both of whom, Ames asserted, were less qualified than her.

"That's how I came to feel that I was being discriminated on because I was straight and pushed aside for them," Ames, 60, said in an interview.

The U.S. Supreme Court is due next Wednesday to hear arguments in her bid to revive her civil rights lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services after lower courts threw it out. She is seeking monetary damages from the state.

A ruling in her favor by the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, could make it easier for non-minorities, including white people and heterosexuals, to pursue claims of illegal bias - often called "reverse" discrimination - under a landmark federal anti-discrimination law.

(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: constitution; discrimination; lgb; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
Oral arguments should be interesting in this case. I wish they wouldn't call it "reverse discrimination". Discriminating against someone for their sex, race, or sexual preferences, is plain old discrimination. No "reverse" needed.
1 posted on 02/20/2025 4:30:31 PM PST by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CFW

Discrimination is discrimination.

There is no “reverse discrimination”.


2 posted on 02/20/2025 4:37:20 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

“the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority”

Total BS.

It’s 3-2-1-1-2 along the spectrum [with minor exceptions by Gorsuch].


3 posted on 02/20/2025 4:38:46 PM PST by Paladin2 (the Bee?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Correct it is just discrimination. USSC made it clear in recent rulings they don’t want discrimination that going on. Whether she can show she was demoted/others promoted because of protected status is the question.


4 posted on 02/20/2025 4:42:19 PM PST by monkeyshine (live and let live is dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall; spacejunkie2001; Bshaw; ptsal; 11th_VA; Reno89519; newfreep; frogjerk; OneVike; ...

SCOTUS ping!

BTW, SCOTUS will be releasing opinions tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. I plan to post a discussion thread at around 9:45 a.m.

Here is a list of cases for this term. I would think we will see opinions from the October and possibly November sittings.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2024/

There are a couple of interesting cases that were heard in both sittings.

One is:

Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852 [Arg: 10.8.2024]

Issue(s): (1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.

And, I guess it is always a very slight possibility that SCOTUS will rule on Trump’s petition regarding the firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel

Article here:

“Trump asks court to allow firing of watchdog agency official”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/trump-asks-court-to-allow-firing-of-watchdog-agency-official/

(Grammar and spelling police: Please excuse any errors in the above post. I’m preparing dinner as I prepare this post).


5 posted on 02/20/2025 4:44:17 PM PST by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yup

Butwe use the terminology because the left’s logic is expressed this way. And we can use it against them.


6 posted on 02/20/2025 4:47:17 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CFW

I think this woman, Amesbury, will win with an 8-1 vote. I don’t think even the wise Latina will vote against her. Maybe even Jackson will vote for her.

When you have an attorney with NAACP connections representing her, you know Ames is going to win.


7 posted on 02/20/2025 5:06:22 PM PST by WASCWatch ( WASC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
"“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

- Alinsky

8 posted on 02/20/2025 5:08:32 PM PST by blackdog ((Z28.310) Be careful what you say. Your refrigerator may be listening & reporting you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WASCWatch

As I said, the oral arguments should be interesting. I may take the time to read the pleadings before then.


9 posted on 02/20/2025 5:12:32 PM PST by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CFW

I am also going to read the pleadings and listen to the oral arguments. Pity the poor sole from the State AG’s office who will be making the oral argument. If I was the assistant AG assigned to the case, I’d take a hard pass. If I was the state solicitor general, I’d ask for a volunteer, because there is no way I’d subject myself to the humiliation that person is going to get.


10 posted on 02/20/2025 5:22:16 PM PST by WASCWatch ( WASC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

However you slice it, these 9 judges votes should be based on the Constitution, not their interpretation of it and bias against it. According to a statement from chief Justice, John Robert, several years ago, there are no conservative judges, and no commie judges on the court. Just judges.


11 posted on 02/20/2025 5:25:42 PM PST by Smellin Salt (AT A POLITICAL )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CFW

The they would have to reverse the Allen Bakke case. Maybe not literally but effectively.

After that, I decided I needed to go to white male doctor only. Otherwise, you don’t know if they got in based on race.


12 posted on 02/20/2025 5:28:42 PM PST by CottonBall (Librela, the new jab for dogs and cats. Pfizer/Zoetis is making billions killing our furbabies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

TY for the heads up

Congress seems to be becoming conservative. Let’s see if the Supremes are following suite


13 posted on 02/20/2025 5:29:47 PM PST by CottonBall (Librela, the new jab for dogs and cats. Pfizer/Zoetis is making billions killing our furbabies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Total BS is right!
A conservative court? Don’t make me laugh!


14 posted on 02/20/2025 5:36:51 PM PST by bantam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

Thats funny, the first question I asked my new doctor 24 years ago after he bought my old doctors practice, was if he got in to medical school through an affirmative action program or did you actually study?? he’s persian. He is still my Doctor and we get along very well together.


15 posted on 02/20/2025 5:48:15 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CFW
Ames is challenging a requirement used by some U.S. courts that plaintiffs from majority groups, such as white and straight people, must provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to make an initial - or "prima facie" - claim of discrimination under a seminal 1973 Supreme Court ruling that governs the multi-step process employed to resolve such cases.

This ruling itself was biased and needs to be overturned. 1 standard, 1 set of rules for everybody.

16 posted on 02/20/2025 6:17:54 PM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smellin Salt

“According to a statement from chief Justice, John Robert, several years ago, there are no conservative judges, and no commie judges on the court. Just judges.”

Traitor Roberts’ pronouncement is and was totally laughable. [It also applied to all Federal Judges...]

Note that he has not repeated his hilarious pronouncement since.

TR still has a case of Long TDS.


17 posted on 02/20/2025 6:36:14 PM PST by Paladin2 (the Bee?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Even “protected status” is the question - the 1964 Civil Rights act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, creed, etc.

“Affirmative Action” conflicts with this, and the courts have tied themselves into pretzels trying to square that circle. It is discriminatory and illegal, they know it. Nothing “reverse” about it.


18 posted on 02/20/2025 7:05:32 PM PST by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

yes, do you know what they call the graduate that finished last in his class? DOCTOR


19 posted on 02/20/2025 7:06:33 PM PST by bdfromlv (Leavenworth hard time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

Whites make up what,4% of the world’s population?

What’s this “majority” bullshit?


20 posted on 02/20/2025 7:07:19 PM PST by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson