这是周三在美国最高法院进行的一场备受瞩目的法律辩论，对美国激烈的文化战争有着潜在的重大影响。
最终，法官们似乎达成了罕见的共识——在一名异性恋白人女性的案件中，找到了尼尔·戈萨奇大法官所说的“激进共识”指控“反向歧视”因为性取向而被她的雇主解雇。
原告Marlean Ames曾要求法官推翻下级法院的一项裁决，该裁决驳回了她对俄亥俄州青年服务部的就业歧视诉讼，她在该部工作了15年以上。
经过不到一个小时的口头辩论，她似乎会如愿以偿——尽管还远不能确定她最终会赢得这场歧视案。
埃姆斯称，她的雇主拒绝给她升职，后来还把她降职，在这两种情况下都选择了不太合格的同性恋候选人。她当时的主管也是同性恋。
1964年《民权法案》第七章禁止基于性别和性取向的歧视。
最高法院说，原告根据第七章提出索赔，首先必须证明一个初步证据确凿的案件或一系列事实，如果不加解释，很可能构成歧视。
美国第六巡回上诉法院的结论是，埃姆斯不符合这一标准，因为作为一名直女，她未能证明必要的“背景情况”，而这是证明她作为一个多数群体成员受到歧视所必需的。
埃姆斯认为“背景情况”的要求对她来说是一个不公平的额外负担，仅仅因为她是异性恋。几乎所有的法官都同意这一点，甚至俄亥俄州的律师也同意。
“我们同意，俄亥俄州也同意，区别对待人们是错误的，”俄亥俄州副检察长埃利奥特·盖瑟在接受质询时告诉大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特。
最高法院资深自由派成员索尼娅·索托马约尔法官认为，至少艾姆斯的情况“有些可疑”，值得下级法院进一步调查。
“在我看来，我们今天在这一点上基本达成了一致，”大法官尼尔·戈尔萨奇(Neil Gorsuch)打趣道，法院需要重申，第七章平等适用于所有人。
然而，盖瑟认为，即使最高法院推翻了第六巡回法庭关于白人、异性恋和/或男性(即多数群体)原告的“背景情况”规则，它也应该清楚地表明，埃姆斯仍然可能没有提出一个足够可信的歧视案件来推进。
布雷特·卡瓦诺(Brett Kavanaugh)法官表示，法院可能会提出一个狭隘的意见，让下级法院就埃姆斯的指控以及他们是否应该向前推进进行进一步的基于事实的审议。
卡瓦诺说，法院需要说的是，“一个非常简短的意见，即基于性取向的歧视，无论是因为你是同性恋还是因为你是异性恋，都是禁止的，不管怎样，规则都是一样的。”
就业法专家认为，这样的裁决可以有效地让多数群体成员更容易向法院提起涉嫌歧视的诉讼。
“在更广泛的层面上，这项裁决将向公众强调，法律同样禁止对多数群体和少数群体的歧视，”就业律师、费城私人公司杜安·莫里斯·LLP的合伙人乔纳森·西格尔说。“这可能会增加所有巡回赛中所谓多数群体成员的索赔数量。”
“当然，不能孤立地看待埃姆斯案的判决，”西格尔补充道。“这将发生在DEI项目已经处于法律显微镜下的时候，发现‘反向歧视’可能会使雇主的DEI项目受到联邦和州的调查。”
埃姆斯诉俄亥俄州青少年服务部一案的判决预计将于6月底做出。
Supreme Court finds 'radical agreement' in employment discrimination case
It was a high-profile legal debate at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday with potentially big implications for America's raging culture wars.
In the end, justices appeared to come to rare consensus -- to find what Justice Neil Gorsuch called "radical agreement" -- in the case of a straight white womanalleging "reverse discrimination"by her employer on the basis of sexual orientation.
The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, had asked the justices to reverse a lower court ruling that tossed out her employment discrimination lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she had worked for more than 15 years.
After a little under an hour of oral arguments, it appears she will get her wish -- though it's far from certain she will ultimately win her discrimination case.
Ames alleges her employer denied her a promotion and later demoted her, in both cases selecting gay candidates instead who were less qualified. Her supervisor at the time was also gay.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
The Supreme Court has said that plaintiffs bringing claims under Title VII must, as a first step, show a prima facie case -- or initial set of facts that, if unexplained, plausibly amount to discrimination.
The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that Ames didn't meet that bar because -- as a straight woman -- she failed to show the necessary "background circumstances" necessary to show a plausible case of discrimination against her as a member of a majority group.
Ames argued the "background circumstances" requirement was an unfair added burden on her simply because she's straight. Nearly all of the justices seemed to agree -- even the attorney for the state of Ohio.
"We agree, Ohio agrees, that it's wrong to treat people differently," Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser told Justice Amy Coney Barrett during questioning.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's senior liberal member, suggested that at the very least there was "something suspicious" about Ames' situation that warranted further examination by the lower courts.
"We're in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me," quipped Justice Neil Gorsuch about the need for the Court to reassert that Title VII applies to everyone equally.
Gaiser argued, however, that even if the Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's "background circumstances" rule for white, straight, and/or male (i.e. majority-group) plaintiffs it should make clear that Ames still may not have presented a sufficiently plausible case of discrimination to move forward.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the Court will likely deliver a narrow opinion leaving to a lower court further fact-based deliberations about Ames' allegations and whether they should move forward.
All the Court needs to say, Kavanaugh said, "is a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it's because you're gay or because you're straight, is prohibited, and the rules are the same whichever way that goes."
Employment law experts suggested such a ruling could effectively make it easier for members of majority groups to bring cases of alleged discrimination in court.
"On a broader level, the ruling will reinforce to the public that the law prohibits discrimination equally against majority and minority groups alike," said Jonathan Segal, an employment lawyer and partner at Duane Morris LLP, a private firm based in Philadelphia. "This likely will increase in all circuits the already increasing number of claims by members of so-called majority groups."
"Of course, the Ames decision cannot be viewed in isolation," Segal added. "It will take place at a time when DEI programs already are under the legal microscope A finding of 'reverse discrimination' may subject an employer’s DEI programs to federal and state investigations."
A decision in the case -- Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services -- is expected by the end of June.
