The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Ames v. State of Ohio Department of Youth Services
Overview
Plaintiff sued Defendant arguing that she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation (heterosexual) when Defendant denied her a promotion to Bureau Chief and demoted her from the position of PREA Administrator.
Details
The court affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Department. The court found that Plaintiff lacked evidence of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
Ames appealed to the Supreme Court on March 20, 2024, requesting that the Court answer the question whether a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
Litigation History
Significance
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case, it could eliminate the requirement to show “background circumstances” in such cases, making it easier for dominant-group plaintiffs to succeed in discrimination claims under Title VII.