Heterosexual Discrimination in the Work Place?

Heterosexual discrimination is certainly not a phrase I thought I’d be writing any time soon. Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman, is being heard by the Supreme Court for discrimination based on her sexuality—which is straight. Now the Supreme Court has to decide whether they should apply higher standards when someone of a majority group, such as a white or heterosexual person, makes a discrimination claim.

Ames filed a suit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2020 based on Title VII discrimination laws that one shall not be discriminated against based on religion, sex, sexual orientation, or race. The suit was dismissed by the district court, issuing their judgement in favor of the state. In December 2023, Ames appealed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals held up the decision made prior in Ohio’s favor. Because there were not “background circumstances” given by Ames to prove the discrimination was in fact due to her sexuality, the case had no substance.

The Ohio Department of Youth Services hired Ames in 2001. She was hired to oversee juvenile felony offenders and was then promoted in 2004 to Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which was a position she could be dismissed from without cause. In 2017, she was assigned a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, a gay woman. Ames applied for the Bureau Chief of Quality position within their department, which she interviewed for and did not receive. Allegedly, after this, Trim suggested that Ames retire. Soon after, she was fired from her administrative position, causing a significant pay cut. Who was hired as PREA Administrator after her? A gay man, Alexander Stojsavlejevic. The department’s Bureau Chief of Quality was also selected to be Yolanda Frierson, a gay woman.

They did not do any of the hiring or firing, however. That was done by Department Director Ryan Gies and Assistant Director Julie Walburn. Both of these individuals are, in fact, straight. This was not enough evidence of discrimination, as the only cases she could provide were her own demotion and not being selected as Bureau Chief of Quality.

Now that the case has gone to the Supreme Court, they must decide how much “background circumstances” weigh into these cases, such as the hiring of two LGBTQ+ individuals in place of Ames. Should they rule in her favor, it will give cisgender, white, and heterosexual people an easier route to claiming that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are harmful. At this time, the case has not been heard, but the new term for the Supreme Court recently started on October 7, and they will be hearing cases from December to early July.