U.S. Supreme Court Issues Reversal for Title VII “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

On June 5, 2025, in a 9-0 opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that members of a “majority group” do not have to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a discrimination claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (“Title VII”). The Ames decision resolves a Circuit split as to whether majority-group plaintiffs are subject to a different evidentiary burden than minority-group plaintiffs.

Background

Petitioner Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the “Agency”) since 2004. In 2019, the Agency interviewed Ames for a management position, which the Agency ultimately awarded to another candidate – a lesbian woman. Subsequently, the Agency demoted Ames from her role and later hired a gay man to fill her original position.  Ames filed this lawsuit against the Agency under Title VII alleging she was denied the promotion and demoted due to her sexual orientation (being straight).

Summary of Decision

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, analyzing Ames’s claims under McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), which sets forth the traditional framework for evaluating disparate treatment claims. At the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by producing enough evidence to support an inference of discriminatory motive. The Sixth Circuit, like the District Court, held that Ames failed to meet her prima facie burden because she had not shown additional “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” which required plaintiffs in certain circuits (including the Sixth) who are members of a majority-group to bear an additional burden. The Court reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing in addition to the usual elements required to establish a prima facie case. Because Ames did not, the Sixth Circuit granted summary judgment in the Agency’s favor, and thus did not reach the question of whether the Agency had proffered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action and then whether Ames had shown that the Agency’s stated reason was pretextual, as per the McDonnell Douglas framework.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s longstanding precedents. In its written opinion, the Supreme Court stated that Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. To the contrary, the provision makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual because of their race, color, sex, or national origin. As reinforced through the Court’s precedents, the Court noted that by establishing the same protections for every “individual”, without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group, Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.

Takeaway for Employers

The Ames decision eliminates a barrier that some courts have imposed on “reverse discrimination” claims, simplifying the pathway for majority-group plaintiffs to file claims under Title VII. The decision clarifies that majority-group plaintiffs must be assessed under the same evidentiary standard as all other claimants and may lead to an increase in claims, including those challenging diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as a form of unlawful discrimination. Employers committed to fostering inclusive workplaces may continue to pursue thoughtfully designed and lawful DEI programs; however, they are well advised to regularly review all such programs and practices.