We will hear argument this morning in case number 23, 1039, Ames v. the Ohio Department of Youth Services.

Mr. Wang?

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Marlene Ames has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for over two decades,

and in 2018, her year-end performance review described her as being very competent in her role,

a pleasure to have on the team and always willing to assist others.

But in 2019, she experienced two adverse employment actions.

First, she sought a promotion to Bureau Chief, for which she was qualified, for which she applied, and for which she interviewed.

But neither she or the two other

heterosexual employees who applied and interviewed got the job. Instead, the job was held open

for eight months before going to a gay employee who neither applied nor interviewed for the position.

And second, Ms. Ames lost the job that she was in, and she lost in was replaced by a separate gay employee

who also did not apply her interview for the position.

Based on these facts, the Sixth Circuit held that Ms. Ames had satisfied the usual requirements

for stating a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, but she could not proceed because of the

background circumstances rule, which the Sixth Circuit described as an additional showing unique

to majority group plaintiffs. The narrow question before the Court today is whether this

judge-made rule is consistent with Title VII, and we submit that it is not. It's not because this Court has said that Title VII aims to eradicate all discrimination in the workplace.

But the background circumstances rule doesn't do that.

It doesn't eradicate discrimination.

It instructs courts to practice it by sorting individuals into majority and minority groups,

based on their race, their sex, or their protected characteristic,

...