**Supreme Court Eases Path for Reverse Discrimination Lawsuits**

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has simplified the process for individuals to file reverse discrimination lawsuits, siding with an Ohio woman who alleges she was denied a job and subsequently demoted due to her heterosexual orientation. This ruling impacts litigation in 20 states and the District of Columbia, where courts had historically set a higher threshold for members of majority groups—such as white and heterosexual individuals—seeking redress under federal discrimination laws.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the court's opinion, asserting that federal civil rights statutes provide identical protections to all individuals, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group. "Congress explicitly provided equal protections for every 'individual,' making no distinctions based on group membership," Jackson wrote. This landmark ruling arose from the case of Marlean Ames, an employee with the Ohio Department of Youth Services with over two decades of service.

Justice Clarence Thomas, while concurring with Jackson's opinion, emphasized a separate viewpoint highlighting that numerous large and prestigious American employers have discriminated against perceived majority group members. He referenced a brief from America First Legal, noting the ongoing focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives among employers.

The case stemmed from Ames' argument that she was overlooked for a promotion and subsequently demoted due to her being heterosexual, with both positions being awarded to LGBTQ individuals. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sex-based discrimination in employment contexts. Prior to this ruling, both a trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against Ames, citing an additional requirement that plaintiffs like Ames must demonstrate "background circumstances" indicative of discrimination.

Justice Jackson clarified that the imposition of the "background circumstances" requirement was not in alignment with Title VII's language or the Supreme Court’s precedents interpreting the statute. This decision eliminates the extra burden previously placed on majority-group plaintiffs, affirming that the protection against discrimination provided by Title VII applies uniformly.