Supreme Court Levels the Playing Field for Reverse Discrimination Claims

In a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified a critical issue in employment discrimination law. It held that discrimination claims brought by majority-group members, such as white, male, heterosexual, or other traditionally dominant groups, are not subject to a higher burden of proof than those brought by minority-group members. The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services helps ensure that courts across the country apply the same evidentiary standard to federal discrimination claims for every plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s Employment Discrimination Case

Marlean Ames was a heterosexual woman who began her career with the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004. She received strong performance reviews and was promoted internally. In 2019, she applied and interviewed for a newly created management position within the agency. Ultimately, she was passed over in favor of a homosexual woman. Days later, Ms. Ames was demoted to her original position and replaced by a gay man.

Ms. Ames filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation. The District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her claims because she did not show “background circumstances” proving her employer was “the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” This “background circumstances” requirement is unnecessary in discrimination claims brought by minority plaintiffs, but several federal courts have applied it in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling: Equal Standards for All Litigants

The Supreme Court rejected this heightened standard in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Court held that Title VII does not distinguish between plaintiffs based on whether they are part of a majority or minority group. Since the statute protects all individuals equally, the Court reasoned that all discrimination claims should be evaluated under the same evidentiary framework. The Court emphasized that requiring additional “background circumstances” for reverse discrimination cases was inconsistent with both the plain text of Title VII and existing precedent (previous court decisions).

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concurred in the judgment. Their concurrence pointed out the difficulty of determining who is a “minority” in an increasingly multicultural American populace and criticized judicial doctrines not grounded in statutory text. It also opened the door for future challenges to DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies. 

Proving Employment Discrimination

The Supreme Court established the framework for evaluating discrimination claims under Title VII in the 1973 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green decision. Although that case dealt with racial discrimination, the Court has applied McDonnell’s test to other types of discrimination prohibited by Title VII, including gender and sexual orientation.

The McDonnell test required a plaintiff to present evidence that they applied for an available position for which they were qualified but were rejected under circumstances supporting an inference of unlawful discrimination. If the plaintiff fulfills this requirement, the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection to avoid liability. If it meets that burden, the plaintiff may present evidence showing the purported reason was only a “pretext” for unlawful discrimination.

Before the Supreme Court’s decision, federal courts disagreed about whether a different evidentiary standard applied to majority and minority-group plaintiffs. Some courts, including the District and Appellate Courts that decided Ames’ case, required majority-group plaintiffs to present additional “background circumstances” evidence showing a pattern of previous discrimination. This requirement rested on the assumption that employers rarely discriminate against non-minorities based on protected characteristics.

The Supreme Court’s decision clarified that majority-group plaintiffs do not need to provide this additional evidence. Instead, every litigant must meet the same standard.

How Will This Decision Affect Employment Litigation?

The Supreme Court’s decision did not resolve Ms. Ames’ claims against her employer. Instead, it reinstated her original lawsuit in the District Court. To succeed on her claims, Ms. Ames must present enough evidence to support an inference that the agency discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.

This decision will likely have immediate ripple effects in employment litigation, opening the door to more claims by majority-group plaintiffs. By removing a unique hurdle previously faced by these plaintiffs, the Court has opened the door for more reverse discrimination lawsuits to proceed.

Employers must treat every employment action—whether it affects a majority or minority employee—with the same level of diligence. Hiring, promotion, and termination decisions should be based on clear, documented business reasons. Training managers and HR professionals to consistently apply anti-discrimination policies is critical.

Ames reaffirms Title VII’s core principle that every individual is entitled to equal protection under the law in all aspects of hiring, employment, and termination. Employers should carefully examine how their policies and practices are implemented and documented. Employees should understand that Title VII’s protections against discrimination apply universally. While this case did not directly challenge DEI initiatives, the concurring opinion raises a red flag about how these programs might foster discrimination.

If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination by an employer based on your race, gender, sexuality, nationality, or other protected characteristic, contact an experienced employment discrimination attorney immediately.