Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services is an employment discrimination case before the Supreme Court that centers on the correct application of laws aimed at protecting workers from employment discrimination
For Black people and other marginalized groups in the United States, workplace discrimination is not a relic of the past. However, plaintiffs in Ames are asking courts to reinterpret how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects everyone from workplace discrimination, is applied. This could have a significant impact on Black people, women, LGBTQ+ communities, and many others who already face persistent barriers to opportunity.
Because LDF has spent decades developing the legal doctrine interpreting Title VII through impact litigation and legislative advocacy, we submitted an amicus brief in this case.
This case comes after Marlean Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleging that her employer discriminated against her because she is a heterosexual woman. Ms. Ames’ lawsuit invokes Title VII.
On January 24, 2025, LDF, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, National Women’s Law Center, National Employment Law Project, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), and Equal Justice Society filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reaffirm the importance of Title VII’s protections for all employees and reject any rule that would prevent courts from considering the unfortunate realities of how discrimination tends to operate in our society.
Title VII is an essential tool for protecting people against discrimination in the workplace – especially now when many initiatives meant to ensure equal opportunity and protection in the workplace are under direct attack.
Everyone is entitled to Title VII’s protections from workplace discrimination, regardless of whether that person might be considered a “minority” or “non-minority” depending on their particular circumstances. The Supreme Court has been very clear about that for decades.
Ames attempts to argue that the cards are stacked against non-minority plaintiffs in employment discrimination lawsuits. However, studies repeatedly show that courts do not apply Title VII to the disadvantage of majority groups.
While everyone is entitled to Title VII’s protections from workplace discrimination, the persisting legacy of discrimination targeting Black people and other historically marginalized groups cannot be ignored.
When passing Title VII in 1964, Congress explicitly recognized the rampant workplace discrimination against Black people and sought to remedy it. Indeed, historically marginalized people continue to experience discrimination at much higher rates than workers who belong to majority groups. Courts resolving employment discrimination cases brought under Title VII should be able to consider this unfortunate reality. LDF will fight to ensure that this vital civil rights protection is not undermined or misconstrued.
