The Supreme Court is taking up the case of an Ohio woman who claims she suffered sex discrimination in her employment because she is straight.

The justices on Friday agreed to review an appellate ruling that upheld the dismissal of the discrimination lawsuit filed by the woman, Marlean Ames, against the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Arguments probably will take place early next year.

Ames, who has worked for the department for 20 years, contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Doesn’t really matter, either she can prove her case or she can’t. If she can’t, no one has to prove it was because she was an asshole.

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I disagree with your assessment. Just because someone can’t demonstrate something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I’ll wait to see how it plays out.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Just because someone can’t demonstrate something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

          That’s exactly my point about whether or not she’s an asshole. Moreover, the outcome of the legal proceedings don’t depend on whether anyone can prove it.

          But the outcome of the legal proceedings are entirely dependent on whether she can prove her assertion.

          You disagree with my assessment because you are misinterpreting it.

          if she’s conflating her orientation class with her just being a fucking asshole she should lose.

          How would one show that in a court room?

          no one is required to do so for this court room event, and hence:

          Doesn’t really matter, either she can prove her case or she can’t.

        • Ilovemyirishtemper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          One of the biggest things I learned when I started working in the legal field is that the only justice you’ll get is the justice you can prove. Things like this might be true, but if you can’t prove it, you’ll get no justice for it.

          Is that fair? No. But the system we created is based on the assumption that people are going to be wrongfully imprisoned or charged for actions that they didn’t commit simply because the government wants them imprisoned. We designed it that way because that used to happen often in other countries, and we didn’t want that to happen here. So, we created rules to avoid wrongful imprisonment by the government without finding a way to also protect victims who may not have enough evidence to prove their victimization.

          I’m not saying that what this woman is asserting happened or didn’t happen. I have no idea what went down. I also don’t know how we fix the system. People are wrongfully imprisoned, victims don’t receive justice, etc., but this is how the system is designed, so whether or not it’s true, she is required to demonstrate it, or she will receive no justice.