Reverse Discrimination Case Another Nail In The Coffin For DEI

Federal law is supposed to offer equal protection to all Americans. It might not cover you, though — that is, if you’re a Christian, a man, white, or a member of any other so-called majority group. A Supreme Court case is poised to change that.

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, alleges the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her on the basis of her sexuality. Ames says she was passed over for a promotion she was qualified for, and later demoted to a lower-paying position, by the department. 

“Neither she nor the two other heterosexual employees who applied and interviewed got the job,” Attorney Xiao Wang told the Supreme Court on behalf of Ames. “Instead, the job was held open for eight months before going to a gay employee who neither applied nor interviewed for the position. And second, Ms. Ames lost the job that she was in, and she lost it and was replaced by a separate gay employee who also did not apply or interview for the position.” (RELATED: Supreme Court Justice Proves She’s Totally Clueless Yet Again)

Ames’ case was dismissed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals despite meeting the usual requirements for a discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As a heterosexual, Ames was subject to an additional burden of proof: “background circumstances.” Background circumstances is a legal exception established in 1981, which sets a higher bar for members of a “majority group” seeking redress for discrimination. 

1/2 Despite an exemplary record, Marlean Ames was demoted from the Department of Youth Services, her pay cut nearly in half. Her former role went to a 25-year-old gay man. She alleges her gay boss denied her a promotion and demoted her for being straight, so she sued for… pic.twitter.com/vKSxskdRcI

— American Institute for Economic Research (@aier) March 17, 2025

In other words, it’s a legal assertion of the validity of “reverse discrimination.” Reverse discrimination is a curious term. It assumes discrimination is unidirectional, the exclusive and evil domain of non-protected classes. The left has largely abandoned the phrase and for good reason. It seems plainly obvious that entire swaths of American life are organized to discriminate against the so-called privileged. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is little more than window dressing to discriminate against white men. 

Take Harvard University, currently under investigation by President Donald Trump’s administration for violating the Civil Rights Act. “At the beginning of the hiring process, Harvard instructs search committees to ‘ensure that the early lists include women and minorities’ and to ‘consider reading the applications of women and minorities first,’” claim Christopher Rufo and Ryan Thorpe, citing internal documents. Those select few non-women, non-minorities who make it through the selection process are further screened for ideological fealty. (RELATED: Trump Quashes Elite University’s Endless Summer Vacation)

Ames’ case won’t just establish a precedent that makes it easier for heterosexuals to bring discrimination lawsuits. It has implications for so-called “reverse discrimination” of all sorts, including racial.  DEI proponents will have to get much better at disguising their discriminatory practices if they’re to persist in their efforts to screen out qualified candidates. Trump has forced the universities to choose between DEI and federal funding. He’s instructed the federal government to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability. Now, it’s up to the Supreme Court to dismantle this particular method of enshrined discrimination. 

“The rule that the Sixth Circuit applied was apparently based on an intuition about the way in which most employers behave,” said Justice Samuel Alito about the lower court’s dismissal. “And maybe it was sound at the time [that precedent] was decided. Maybe, as some of the amici have argued, it’s no longer sound today.”

Even T. Elliot Gaiser, the attorney representing Ohio, appeared to agree, if accidentally. “I think that everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally,” said Gaiser to the Supreme Court. If this is the case, it’s clear the “background circumstances” burden must be forever put to bed. 

Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatalieIrene03