The Supreme Court is likely to claim job bias for Ohio woman because she is straightforward

Washington (AP) – The Supreme Court on Wednesday was likely to favor an Ohio woman, claiming that she faced sexual discrimination from her employer as she was straight.

The result of the case can overcome an additional requirement that some courts apply, when members of the majority group, which have white and heterosexual, sued for discrimination under the federal law.

Justice Brett Kawanugh explained a way to resolve the case, enjoying widespread support among his colleagues.

“Discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are what it goes, ”said Kawanugh.

Justice heard arguments in an appeal by Marlein AIIMS, who have worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.

AIIMS says that she was passed for a promotion and then left as she is heterosexual. The job he had asked for and what he had organized was given to LGBTQ people.

The title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is sexually discriminated against the VII workplace. A trial court and the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against AIIMS.

The question for Justice is that the Cincinnati-based 6th circuit and several other appeals covering 20 states apply at high levels in the courts and Columbia district when members of the majority group claim discrimination. People who accuse the workplace’s bias have to show “background conditions”, in which LGBTQ people have also made decisions affecting AIIMS or statistical evidence, which show a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.

The appeal court said that AIIMS did not provide any such situation.

Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gizer told Justice that the officials who made jobs did not even know the sexual orientation of AIIMS.

But even Geiser did not object much to the narrow outcome which was most likely. “Everyone agrees that everyone should be treated equally,” Geyser said.

His concession inspired Justice Neil Golrsch to note, “We are in a radical agreement on it today.”

The US First Legal and other orthodox groups filed a brief by arguing that members of the majority groups are likely to face job discrimination, if not, due to diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

President Donald Trump has ordered the abolition of DEI policies in the federal government and demanded to abolish government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some DEEI initiatives of the new administration have been temporarily blocked in the federal court.

Lawyers have written for the US established by Trump’s associate Stephen Miller that the idea that discrimination against members of majority groups is rare in this era of “diversity, equity and inclusion” is highly suspected in this era.

But there was no mention of dei by Justice on Wednesday.