Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services (23-1039)

argument 23-1039

Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services

Supreme Court of the United States 54 min 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the factual background and employment actions against Marlene Ames?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case number twenty three ten thirty nine, Ames versus the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Mr. Wang?

Mr. Wang 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Marlene Ames has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over two decades. And in 2018, her year-end performance review described her as being very competent in her role, a pleasure to have on the team and always willing to assist others. But in 2019, she experienced two adverse employment actions. First, she sought a promotion to Bureau Chief, for which she was qualified, for which she applied, and for which she interviewed. But neither she nor the two other heterosexual employees who applied and interviewed got the job. Instead the job was held open for eight months before going to a gay employee who neither applied nor interviewed for the position.

Mr. Wang 0:49

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. Based on these facts, the Sixth Circuit held that Ms. Ames had satisfied the usual requirements for stating a prima fascia case of discrimination under Title VII, but she could not proceed because of the background circumstances rule, which the Sixth Circuit described as an additional showing unique to majority group plaintiffs. The narrow question before the court today is whether this judge-made rule is consistent with Title VII, and we submit that it is not. It's not because this court has said that Title VII aims to eradicate all discrimination in the workplace.

Mr. Wang 1:32

But the background circumstances rule doesn't do that. It doesn't eradicate discrimination. It instructs courts to practice it by sorting individuals into majority and minority groups based on their race, their sex, or their protected characteristics. in applying a categorical evidentiary presumption, not in favor of, but against the non moving party, based solely on their being in a majority group, however you define it. But that's not consistent with the statute that tells us that we are supposed to protect all individuals from individual discrimination based on the individual case. And it's not consistent with McDonald versus Santa Fe Trail, where this Court says that all individuals, whether in majority or minority groups, are protected by Title VII, under the same terms and the same standards.

Mr. Wang 2:17

For these reasons, we urge the Court to reverse the judgment of the Sixth Circuit. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:24

Uh what do you uh do with uh respondents' argument that this is merely an application of our precedent?

Mr. Wang 2:30

I don't think it is a d uh an application of this Court's precedence, uh, Your Honor. And and Justice Thomas, it's because this Court's precedence in McDonnell Douglas lays out a framework, and then McDonald versus Santa Fe Trail says they apply to the same terms and same standards. But the background circumstances rule isn't the same term. It's not the same standard. The Sixth Circuit says it's an additional burden. And in prior cases it says it's a difficult and more demanding burden on majority group plaintiffs. So I don't think it's consistent with this Court's precedence.

John G. Roberts 3:03

What if you have a situation where say sixty employees uh in the company, um say you know, uh a half dozen uh African Americans, uh an African American is uh uh applies for a job, there's an opening, uh he doesn't get it, remains open for, you know, a a couple of months. Uh does that satisfy the prima facie case?

Mr. Wang 3:29

Uh assuming that they are qualified and

John G. Roberts 3:35

I am sorry, is that that's a yes.

Mr. Wang 3:37

Yes, that that that is true. Correct.

John G. Roberts 3:38

Okay. Now let's say it's the same thing, uh uh but the uh applicant is uh white. uh exactly the same facts. She says I was discriminating I lost the job because of discrimination on the basis of race. Does that start state a prima facie case?

Mr. Wang 3:54

I think it states a prima fascia case, but I think it goes and then perhaps Your Honor goes to the idea of getting employers to come forward with an explanation and then providing sort of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, which I don't think is a high burden at all.