SCOTUS in Rare Agreement on Discrimination Case

The Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of an Ohio woman's job discrimination lawsuit, a development expected to make it easier for white, heterosexual workers to bring similar cases, reports the Washington Post. One unusual thing here: Based on Wednesday's arguments, both conservative and liberal justices alike seemed set to rule in favor of Marlean Ames, reports SCOTUSblog. "We are in radical agreement," said Justice Neil Gorsuch at one point. All the justices seemed to agree that it's unfair to impose a higher burden of proof on employees in such cases because they belong to a majority.

Ames, who's white and straight, says she twice lost out on jobs to gay co-workers at the Ohio Department of Youth Services despite decent job reviews. She sued under the Civil Rights Act, but courts typically "require members of majority groups mounting a circumstantial case to meet an extra burden of proof not required of minorities—known as 'background circumstances,'" explains the Post. Ames' attorney argued the threshold is unfair, and even the opposing attorney agreed on that point.

The case comes against the backdrop of the Trump administration dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the country, though this ruling may not have as big a sweep as many conservatives hope, according to the New York Times. Instead, it "seemed likely to produce a modest decision saying merely that a key civil rights law applied equally to all employees," writes Adam Liptak. (More US Supreme Court stories.)