NACo Legal Advocacy: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

County Nexus

As one of the largest employers in the country, counties have a significant interest in cases like Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Ames v. Ohio) that could expand county liabilities as employers. This specific case relates to Title VII discrimination lawsuits when claims of discrimination come from a member of a majority group. Title VII lawsuits are resource intensive and expensive to defend, and frivolous lawsuits could more easily be filed if the Sixth Circuit’s decision is reversed. 

Background

Ames v. Ohio considers whether in addition to other elements of a federal Title VII discrimination claim, a petitioner arguing discrimination against a majority group must also show additional background circumstances to show that the respondent is the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” 

The case was brough on by Marlene Ames, a heterosexual woman working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, who claims she was passed up for promotion and demoted to a previous position based on her sexual orientation since her supervisors and others making hiring decisions were LGBTQ. Ames was made Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). In 2017, Ames was assigned a new supervisor, Ginnie Trim, who was a gay woman. Trim reported to her supervisor that Ames “met expectations” in her role as administrator. In 2019, Ohio’s governor appointed a heterosexual man to be the department’s director. At the same time, Ames applied to be the department’s Bureau Chief of Quality by a gay woman was hired instead. Afterwards, Ames was demoted to her previous position, resulting in a significant reduction in pay, and the Administrator of PREA position was filled by a gay man. 

Ames filed a discrimination case claiming she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation. The Sixth Circuit found that she met the typical requirements for a Title VII discrimination case by establishing a pattern of discrimination but also stated that because Ames is a member of a majority group, she must show additional circumstances that indicate her employer is the “unusual employer” who discriminates against the majority group. The Sixth Circuit ultimately ruled in the Department’s favor believing that Ames did not meet this additional standard. Afterwards, Ames petitioned the Supreme Court and on October 4, 2024, the Court agreed to hear the case, with oral arguments being scheduled for February 26. 

NACo Advocacy

In a Local Government Legal Center Brief, filed in support of the respondent, NACo urges the Supreme Court to uphold the Sixth Circuit’s decision to avoid weakening antidiscrimination law to not allow increased frequency of frivolous lawsuits and shift undue burden onto the employer. 

Current Status

Oral arguments are scheduled for February 26, 2025.