Not only that, but the decision was unanimous and Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the opinion.

Then again, this was a slam-dunk case in terms of the law, so it should have been unanimous. However, as we know, there is no limit to how much judges (particularly leftist judges) can turn the law inside out to reach the decision that aligns with their pre-existing political opinions. So the unanimity of this decision is something to praise.

About the case:

Petitioner Marlean Ames was hired by the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 and worked in various roles in the agency. In 2018, her boss, who is gay, conducted a performance evaluation and found that her work met or exceeded expectations in all categories. In 2019, she applied for a new position within the agency, but was passed over for another candidate—a lesbian. Then it got worse. The agency not only demoted Ames from her administrative position and reduced her pay, but also replaced her with a gay man.

She sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation.

The 6th Circuit Court denied her relief in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog explained:

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit threw out Ames’s sexual orientation claim. It explained that because she is straight, she was required to show “background circumstances” to support her allegations of reverse discrimination. And although plaintiffs usually make this kind of showing, the court of appeals suggested, with evidence that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision, or with evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group, Ames cannot do either. The decision-makers in her case – the people who hired someone else for the bureau chief job and who demoted her – were also straight, and there is no “pattern” of reverse discrimination beyond her own case, the court of appeals reasoned.”

In an opinion authored by none other than the uber-liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson, a unanimous Court ruled that the lower court must reconsider the case and exclude the “background circumstances” standard …

In other words, the lower court simply made up a new rule and applied it to Ames, holding her to a higher standard because she’s a straight person, which is (still) considered being in the majority. Many leftist judges seem to like to legislate in accordance with their own beliefs, but at least this time SCOTUS slapped them down:

The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs—those who are members of majority groups—to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in order to carry their burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.

Good.