Supreme Court sides with Ohio straight woman who alleged ‘reverse discrimination’ by gay employer
Grant Faint/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of an Ohio woman who wants to bring an employment discrimination claim against the state, alleging she was passed over for a job on the basis of her heterosexual orientation.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion.
The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, alleges her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, denied her a promotion and later demoted her, in both cases selecting gay candidates instead who were less qualified. Her supervisor at the time was also gay.
Ames had worked for the Department for more than 15 years and received sterling performance reviews.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
In order to bring a case in federal court, plaintiffs must initially present a prima facie case — Latin for “on the face of it” — a legal term to indicate that there are sufficient facts to support a claim.
Justice Jackson, writing for the court, said that Ames had been unfairly held to a higher legal standard as a member of a majority group.
“The question in this case is whether, to satisfy that prima facie burden, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,'” Jackson wrote, quoting the decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We hold that this additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below and remand for application of the proper prima facie standard.”
The ruling means Ames’ lawsuit can move forward, but it does not necessarily mean she will succeed in her case against her former employer.
(NEW YORK) — Days after attacking a megabill that advances President Donald Trump’s agenda, Elon Musk slammed it again on Tuesday calling it a “disgusting abomination” in a post on X.
“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote. “Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — When financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was in the news for his arrest for sex trafficking and eventual death in 2019, Democrats distanced themselves from the onetime donor, disavowing his campaign contributions and condemning conservative conspiracy theories about his death.
Six years later, many Democrats and party leaders are leaning into the GOP infighting and far-right anger over the Trump administration’s handling of the case, raising the issue in press conferences, social media posts and on the floor of the House.
“The American people deserve to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as it relates to this whole sordid Jeffrey Epstein matter,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Monday. “Democrats didn’t put the Jeffrey Epstein thing into the public domain. This was a conspiracy that Donald Trump, Pam Bondi and these MAGA extremists have been fanning the flames of for the last several years and now the chickens are coming home to roost.”
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced an amendment to a cryptocurrency bill set for a House vote this week that would compel Attorney General Pam Bondi to “retain, preserve and compile” Epstein-related records and release them within 30 days.
Khanna’s measure failed on a 5-7 vote in the House Rules Committee, though Republican Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina voted with Democrats.
On the House floor Tuesday, Democrats raised the issue again, in an unsuccessful effort to force consideration of Khanna’s amendment to get all Republicans on the record.
Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, also introduced a resolution this week calling for the release of “all” unclassified records on Epstein.
Both Democrats told ABC News that the issue underscores the “us versus the elites” dynamic they believe has emerged in politics across America.
“It goes to the central question of our times: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the American people who feel that rich and powerful interests have their thumb on the scale and haven’t given them a fair shake? Or are you on the side of protecting the rich and powerful?” Khanna said.
Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., for weeks has led efforts demanding an explanation from the Justice Department about withholding the files.
“A lot of the people who believe all these conspiracy theories did so because they were told that they were accurate by the current FBI director [Kash Patel] and [FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino],” he said.
Before Trump’s election victory, both Patel and Bongino raised questions on conservative podcasts about the withholding of records. Since they have been in office, they have defended the administration’s handling of the situation.
“There could be two reasons for that. One is that it’s all made up for clicks and to make money, and that there’s no basis in fact or evidence, or there is some truth to it, and they’re trying to hide it,”Goldman added.
“People don’t like being misled and don’t like being promised things that are not delivered. And that’s true as it relates to the Epstein files and it’s true as it relates to all of Donald Trump’s campaign promises,” he said.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin has also raised the issue, telling The Bulwark that Democrats are “going to call [Trump] out” for not sharing more records.
The committee also created an X account, called “TrumpEpsteinBot,” to tweet about whether the administration has released the files.
Some Democrats believe the party should be focusing their messaging on the real-world impacts of Trump and Republicans’ policy and legislative agenda.
“This all causes divisions in the MAGA base, which serves Democrats well,” one Democratic operative told ABC News. “But beyond that, most voters are still going to vote based on their pocketbooks.”
A White House spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment on Democrats’ attacks against the administration over the Epstein case.
ABC News’ John Parkinson, Lauren Peller and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — He proposed free crosstown buses. He pushed for steep tax hikes on the wealthy—including an 18.5% property tax increase— insisting none of his rich friends threatened to leave the city over higher taxes. He championed millions to build supermarkets in long-neglected neighborhoods.
And under his plan, city workers could give privately raised cash to New Yorkers booking dental appointments or keeping their children in school.
These progressive policies, however, are not from New York City’s Democratic nominee for mayor, Zohran Mamdani. Experts said they were from Michael Bloomberg, New York’s billionaire former Republican mayor and a prominent supporter of Andrew Cuomo’s run for mayor.
As Mamdani reshapes the city’s political map, some experts told ABC News a striking parallel is emerging. Behind the labels of “socialist” and “technocrat,” both men share aligned goals: taxing the rich during crises, promoting expansive transit ideas, and bold plans to bring fresh food to low-income communities. Still, experts said, even when policies overlap, most New Yorkers do not see them as similar.
They point out many people know Mamdani as an organizer who has posted that capitalism is a form of theft; Bloomberg as a businessman who built a fortune managing the free market that Mamdani is critiquing. Mamdani identifies himself as a democratic socialist and has stated, “I don’t think that we should have billionaires.” Bloomberg is one of the richest people in the world.
Neither Mamdani nor Bloomberg provided statements to ABC News.
Mamdani recently acknowledged in a private meeting with business leaders that he hopes to emulate Bloomberg on a few issues — even as he draws fire from many in the business community, sources familiar told ABC News.
“There’s a resistance from a lot of powerful forces … And it doesn’t have to do with Mamdani’s politics, it has to do with the fact that he doesn’t come from them,” Democratic strategist Peter Feld told ABC News.
Bloomberg spent $8 million backing Cuomo’s failed bid to become the Democratic nominee for mayor.
“If you said which of these things go together, you probably wouldn’t pick Bloomberg and Mamdani,” Christine Quinn, the former city council speaker who helped Bloomberg pass key policies, told ABC News. “But when you peel away at the onion, there’s a lot of similarities.”
Free buses
As early as 2007, Bloomberg spoke about his public transit goals.
During his 2009 re-election campaign, Bloomberg proposed making some Manhattan crosstown buses free of charge. An archived screenshot from his campaign website states, “The MTA should eliminate fare collection…”
At a campaign event, he called the MTA “bloated” and “inefficient.”
The New York Times contrasted observers calling the proposal “radical,” and a Regional Plan Association official saying it “captured people’s imaginations.”
A Mamdani campaign pillar calls for free fares on all bus lines. After piloting a fare-free program on five lines as an assemblymember, Mamdani compared it to Kansas City and Boston’s free programs. Cuomo’s bus plan for mayor includes evaluating the “expansion of a fare-free bus pilot program” that Mamdani championed, and expanding a 50% discount on public transportation for low-income residents.
Regional Plan Association’s Kate Slevin, who served in city government under Bloomberg, said she “can’t remember other mayoral candidates” with a similar plan for free buses. Slevin told ABC News, “When it comes to fares, those are the only two I can remember.”
After Bloomberg won, a transportation website reported he removed the proposal from his website. The plan was never implemented.
Both men faced criticism over feasibility – the MTA controls bus fares.
Mamdani has not publicly highlighted Bloomberg’s old bus proposal, but he’s aware of at least one Bloomberg transportation initiative: in a recent video about expanding dedicated bus lanes, he said, “It’s not a new proposal, Mayor Bloomberg suggested it in 2008.”
Taxing the wealthy
After 9/11, during New York City’s financial crisis, Mayor Bloomberg increased property taxes by 18.5%, short of his original 25% push.
Months later, Bloomberg raised sales and income taxes. Single filers earning over $100,000 were among those impacted.
“[Bloomberg] knew that to make New York livable, you had to raise taxes, and he put that as a priority, rather than to simply cut the budget and vital services,” NYU Professor of Urban Planning and Policy, Mitchell Moss, told ABC News. “Taxes were not a peripheral part of his fiscal policy. They were a central part.”
In a 2007 USC speech, Bloomberg reflected, “As a last resort, we even raised property taxes and income taxes on high-earners,” recalling backlash, saying “raising taxes didn’t make me the most popular…”
Former Mayor Bill de Blasio attempted to raise taxes on the wealthy to fix subways, but was not successful.
Mamdani proposes permanent additional 2% tax increases for earners making over $1 million and raising corporate taxes. Bloomberg framed his hikes as temporary, specifically tied to emergencies.
However, even Bloomberg acknowledged that his tax revenue supported broader ambitions.
“Mike Bloomberg raised taxes following 9/11 out of fiscal necessity, not ideology,” Ed Skyler, a senior executive at Citigroup and former deputy mayor for Bloomberg, told ABC News.
At USC, he said increases, “allowed us to close the huge budget deficits, balance the books and continue investing in the future: building new schools, revitalizing old industrial areas, creating the largest affordable housing program in the nation, supporting our cultural institutions, parks, libraries, and universities, and expanding world-wide advertising to attract businesses and tourists.”
Food policy for low-income communities
Under Bloomberg, starting in 2009, dozens of FRESH grocery stores opened. Many are still operating today. The program offered public subsidies to private grocery operators to boost access to fresh food in underserved neighborhoods.
Quinn, then city council speaker and a key player in passing the program, said they always asked: “how do we use the powers of the city of New York to jolt the private sector into action?”
Bloomberg frequently sought to merge public and private efforts—through initiatives like his Green Carts program—which supplied permits for vendors selling fresh produce in “food deserts,” and Health Bucks, which enabled discounted food to be purchased at farmers markets.
Mamdani proposes one municipally owned, nonprofit grocery store in each borough, offering goods at wholesale prices. On “Plain English,” Mamdani said his plan would cost less than FRESH.
CUNY School of Public Health Professor Nevin Cohen said he believes Mamdani’s plan would cost less than Bloomberg’s, too. He wrote a piece titled “Guess What? Government Is Already in the Grocery Business,” mentioning existing markets in Madison and Atlanta.
Mamdani’s idea isn’t new to the city. Former Mayor Fiorello La Guardia created the first public market network and several still remain today. Under Bloomberg, one such market—Essex Market—was rezoned and relocated to a new, modern space.
Cohen said Bloomberg and Mamdani’s plans “are not just similar. They actually had the same underlying goal.”
Cohen said, “Bloomberg very much intervened in the market” and sent an old advertisement of Bloomberg, dressed as a nanny, labeled, “You only thought you lived in the land of the free.”
Quinn also notes that many of Bloomberg’s plans faced resistance, but once implemented, became part of the city’s fabric.
“What is radical on Monday often becomes widespread by Wednesday,” Quinn said.
Neither Cuomo nor Mayor Eric Adams provided statements to ABC News.
