Straight woman case goes to the Supreme Court over discrimination against being denied promotion over gay co workers.

Ames worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which oversees parts of the state’s juvenile corrections system. After a decade there, in 2014 she became the administrator of a program addressing prison rape. Five years later, she applied for a promotion.

Her supervisors turned her down, saying she lacked vision and leadership skills, eventually giving the position to a gay woman who had been at the department for a shorter time and, unlike Ames, lacked a college degree.

Not long after denying her the new position, her supervisors removed her from her existing job, telling her that they had concerns about her leadership and offering her a demotion that came with a substantial pay cut. She was replaced by a gay man with less seniority.

Sounds like she was a do-nothing karen that nobody liked, which makes the actions of her employer entirely reasonable. Everybody who has ever worked has had the displeasure of meeting one of these people that fails upward, and has an ego the size of Rhode Island.

Remember kids, all you have to do is not be a dick.

It's also impossibly hard to get fired from a government position if you show up and at least put up the appearance of working. So she definitely was an insufferable something or other.
- Ahm... Given resent events you might want to overthink that position again.

I can't read the article, since it is behind a paywall.

I'm going to assume she was denied promotion because she was insufferable to work with and that all her coworkers were sick of her shit.

This is usually the case.

Oooh which side of the deia will win?! Do white gay males trump a straight white female?

This looks like it has nothing to do with sexual orientation at all. She got turned down because she lacked the skills for the job she wanted. Then was demoted because she couldn't do her current job with effective leadership skills.

At the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is that the person has the skills (or the capability to learn the skills). Sexual orientation has no bearing on leadership capability, lol.

https://archive.ph/kYF9N Accessible article

ITT: a lot of dumb, presumptuous comments that completely miss the legal point of the case.

That being: should majority groups (e.g. Whites, men, heterosexuals, etc) have to provide a greater amount of evidence to prove they’re being discriminated against than minority groups.

But no, forget about that. Just call the plaintiff a worthless Karen, completely ignoring the fact that employers regularly choose arbitrary reasons for firing people or denying them promotions which have nothing to do with their actual reasons for doing so.

Presumptuous of you to assert that the plaintiff actually was asked to provide a greater amount of evidence, considering you don't have any evidence to support that aside from the fact that the plaintiff said so
- Not my point at all, try again. I said the point of the case for SCOTUS was to decide whether majority groups had a higher standard of evidence to meet discrimination claims. Which Justice Kagan stated quite clearly:
  The only question the Supreme Court had agreed to decide, Kagan said, “is whether a majority-group plaintiff has to show something more than a minority-group plaintiff, here, whether a straight person has to show more than a gay person.”

I think this is the case that found "profound agreement" over the actual issue that was appealed -- if the courts should let some appellate divisions require an additional burden when a white/cis/het/xian/guy says they were the victim of discrimination.

The civil rights laws are supposed to protect them, too.

What if it wasn't discrimination based on sexual orientation, but instead it was cronyism? Do we have regulations against that at the federal...

Nevermind.