SCOTUS to decide if non-minorities need greater Title VII proof burden

In early October 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to answer a question that has divided courts across the country: in short, whether an employee in a majority group—white, male, or straight—must offer additional evidence to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My prediction: The Court will say “no way” in a 9-to-0 shutout.

Straight employee sues for sexual orientation discrimination

Marlean A. Ames, a straight woman, was denied a promotion by her new supervisor, who is gay, despite receiving good performance reviews. A gay woman got the job instead.

Four days after being rejected, Ames was offered the choice of either resigning from her current position or being demoted. She picked demotion, dropping her hourly wage rate from $47.22 to $28.40. A gay man filled her old position.

In both the promotion and the demotion, Ames alleged she was better qualified than the other employees.

Recall that a few years ago, the Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. So Ames sued, but both the trial court and the appeals court tossed her lawsuit. Why, oh why?

Extra burden?