**US Supreme Court Eases Path for 'Reverse Discrimination' Claims, Revives Ohio Case**

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court has made it simpler for individuals from majority backgrounds, such as white or heterosexual people, to pursue workplace "reverse discrimination" claims. The ruling revived the case of Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who argued that she was denied a promotion at a state agency due to her sexual orientation.

Ames had filed a civil rights lawsuit against Ohio's department of youth services, alleging that her heterosexuality was the reason she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian colleague. Ames claimed that not only did she miss out on the promotion, but she was also demoted to a lower-paying position, which was subsequently filled by a gay man.

The core issue revolved around how plaintiffs like Ames need to demonstrate a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark law prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex, which includes sexual orientation. Lower courts had previously rejected Ames's claims, stating she needed to provide evidence that minority group members had made the discriminatory decisions. The judges noted that the individuals responsible for hiring and demoting Ames were also heterosexual.

In a groundbreaking move, the Supreme Court decided to re-examine the requirements for proving "reverse discrimination." Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated, "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard."

This decision comes amid ongoing debates about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in the United States. The Trump administration had notably targeted DEI efforts, banning them within the federal government and terminating hundreds of employees in DEI roles. Additionally, it cut major programs promoting diversity and threatened universities with funding cuts over their DEI initiatives.

The ruling follows another significant Supreme Court decision in 2023, which declared affirmative action in higher education unconstitutional. Since then, conservative groups have increasingly aimed to dismantle workplace diversity measures. The Ames case exemplifies the growing number of legal challenges against DEI policies, with dozens of similar cases currently pending in courts across the nation.

As the case returns to the lower courts, the outcome will likely have far-reaching implications for "reverse discrimination" claims and the future of DEI policies in America.