this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025

32 points (92.1% liked)

News

30180 readers

3893 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

US supreme court sides with heterosexual woman in ‘reverse discrimination’ case (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago by HellsBelle to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The US supreme court made it easier on Thursday for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace “reverse discrimination”, reviving the case of an Ohio woman who claimed that she did not get a promotion at a state agency because she is heterosexual.

The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, threw out a lower court‘s decision rejecting a civil rights lawsuit by the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, against her employer, Ohio’s department of youth services.

Ames argued that she was denied a promotion within the Ohio department of youth services because she is heterosexual. A lesbian was hired for the job instead, and Ames was eventually demoted to a lower position with lower pay, with a gay man taking her previous role.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 76 points 1 week ago

Misleading title. The issue was that, in discrimination cases, lower courts started making majority groups (white people, straight people) provide extra evidence of discrimination than is usually required in order to win an employment discrimination case. All this decision did is clarified that, for discrimination cases, majority groups don’t need to provide extra evidence of discrimination—there isn’t a higher bar for majority groups. The ‘burden’ of evidence of discrimination is the same regardless of which group is claiming discrimination. The Supreme Court, in making this decision, didn’t decide any facts, they just instructed the lower court to look at the case again with this clarification in mind. The lower courts might still find she wasn’t subject to discrimination.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This lady probably didn't get a promotion because she has the kind of personal disposition that would cause her to sue for not getting a promotion. Who wouldn't just go get a different, better job elsewhere?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Without hearing the facts the plaintiff does really sound like a bitch. Entirely possible she was discriminated but getting demoted so a gay person could take your spot is really far-fetched.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

She was busy at work asking everyone's bedroom habits.

[–] HellsBelle 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“I want people to try and understand that we’re trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just for a white woman in Ohio.”

Riiiight.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

as soon as she mentioned her race, we know what she really believes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, threw out a lower court‘s decision...

Is it just me, or has there been an uptick in unanimous Supreme Court rulings lately? Could they be doing some behind-the-scenes vote trading in order to appear more unified in their dealings with the executive branch?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

About 40% of the time they are unanimous. And it has been that way since at least when FDR appointed 8/9, probably longer. But people care about controversy more than consensus in their news.

That is just dog bites man vs man bites dog.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

[–] imsufferableninja 5 points 1 week ago

I agree. Discrimination is discrimination, there's no such thing as "reverse" discrimination

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

And the day just started for me.