Justice Jackson’s Ruling Sparks New Discussion on Diversity and Inclusion Law

Central to the ongoing debate on diversity, equity, and inclusion is a fundamental legal question: To what extent should the law regard an individual as distinct, rather than primarily as a member of a particular group?

Historically, American law and institutions have answered this by emphasizing group identity. Individuals identified as Black, Native American, or women were often subject to fewer rights, privileges, and opportunities compared to those categorized as white and male.

This disparity represents a profound injustice. At the very least, justice requires that discrimination be halted. But does it also necessitate proactive measures aimed at assisting historically marginalized groups through efforts to enhance diversity in workplaces and educational institutions, addressing the long-term effects of systemic discrimination?

On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling in a case directly addressing this issue. While the verdict was anticipated, both the unanimity and the identity of the opinion’s author drew attention.

The case, Ames v. Ohio, involves straightforward facts. In 2004, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was hired by the Ohio Department of Youth Services as an executive secretary. By 2019, after progressing to program administrator, she applied for a managerial role in the department’s Office of Quality and Improvement.

Though Ames was interviewed, the department ultimately selected a lesbian candidate for the position. Subsequently, Ames was demoted, and her role was filled by a gay man. Viewing this as discrimination based on sexual orientation, she filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.