On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court sided with a heterosexual Ohio woman in a decision that makes it easier to file “reverse discrimination” suits. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson announced for the Court: “Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group …”
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Appellant Marlean Ames started working for Ohio’s state government in 2004. In her lawsuit, Ames alleged that in 2017, she started reporting to a homosexual boss and was passed over for a promotion that was offered to another homosexual woman. Ultimately, Ames twice lost jobs at the Ohio Department of Youth Services to other candidates she thought were less qualified, both of whom were homosexual. The Ohio Department of Youth Services said she was not promoted because Ames lacked the necessary vision and leadership skills, not because she happened to be straight. Ames then was demoted from her administrator position because she would not bring a proactive approach to the department’s increased emphasis on combatting sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system.
The justices rejected the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Ames could not sue because she had failed to provide “background circumstances” showing the department was “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The “background circumstances” test was a heightened evidentiary burden placed on majority-group plaintiffs in reverse discrimination cases. The test required majority-group plaintiffs to provide additional evidence documenting a pattern of discrimination against them, which was not required of minority-group plaintiffs. The D.C. Circuit first articulated the “background circumstances” test in 1981 and five of the eleven federal appellate courts adopted the same or a similar test when assessing reverse discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Distinguishing majority from minority-group petitioners, the D.C. Circuit held that while white people are covered by the Civil Rights Act, it defied common sense “to suggest that the promotion of a black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.”
In Ames, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that the law itself, which bans discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” does not set different thresholds for members of minority and majority groups. The Ames decision aligns with the Court’s recent textualist approach to Title VII – as seen in Bostock v. Clayton County and Muldrow v. St. Louis. Ames also confirms Title VII’s primary purpose in eliminating discrimination in the workplace and that employment decisions must not be based on an individual’s protected characteristics – regardless of majority or minority status. This decision should encourage employers to reassess how they approach employment decisions, including hiring, promotions, terminations, and other workplace actions. Additionally, businesses should be diligent in maintaining proper documentation of these decisions to ensure compliance.
Moving forward, majority-group plaintiffs in circuits that previously required heightened evidence for “reverse discrimination” claims will face a lower bar when bringing discrimination cases under Title VII. This could lead to an uptick in reverse discrimination litigation, particularly in cases involving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which have faced increasing legal challenges. McMahon Berger will continue to monitor developments and implications of this decision and provide updates as they occur. Should you have any questions about the impact of this case on current or future employment practices, please contact the lawyers at McMahon Berger.
DISCLAIMER: The St. Louis employment attorneys at McMahon Berger have been representing employers across the country in labor and employment matters for over sixty years and are available to discuss these issues and others. As always, the foregoing is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice regarding any particular situation as every situation must be evaluated on its own facts. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
