Proud to Be Named ‘Best Law Firm’ in 37 Different Practice Areas Across VT & NH
Attorneys Gadapee and Long Join Primmer Board of Directors
Earlier this year, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that discrimination claims brought by “majority-group” claimants should receive the same consideration as claims by minorities. The facts of the case are somewhat unique.
Ms. Ames was a heterosexual woman and longtime program administrator. She applied and interviewed for a newly created management position. The Defendant hired a different applicant, a lesbian woman, for that management job. Ms. Ames was soon after demoted from program administrator to a secretarial position she had held years earlier when she first joined the Defendant, with a large pay reduction. The Defendant then hired a gay man to fill her previous program-administrator position. She filed a lawsuit claiming the promotion denial and demotion amounted to discrimination based on her sexual orientation.
The lower courts held that because Ms. Ames was a majority-group claimant (i.e. heterosexual) she had to jump through an additional hoop to assert her discrimination claim, showing “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that our discrimination laws afford the same protections and place the same burden of proving a claim on every individual, regardless of whether they are a member of a minority or majority-group.
Thus, when taking adverse employment actions, remember that all employees, regardless of their affiliated group, are similarly protected from discrimination.
