On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that “reverse discrimination” claims are not subject to a heightened standard of proof. This decision clarifies the legal standard required for such claims. This is an important holding for employers to be aware of as these types of claims become more commonplace.
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Case No. 23-1039), the Court examined the standard a plaintiff who belongs to a majority group must show in order to bring a so called “reverse claim” of discrimination under Title VII. This case resolves a circuit split and holds that the protections of Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their membership in a majority group.
The central issue in this case is whether majority-group plaintiffs—such as heterosexuals or white individuals—must meet a higher evidentiary standard known as the “background circumstances” rule when alleging a prima facie case of discrimination. This heightened pleading standard required historically advantaged groups, for example, white or male plaintiffs, to provide additional evidence that their employer discriminated against them in order to establish a claim.
Ames, a heterosexual white woman, brought suit for discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ames alleged that she was demoted and ultimately not selected for promotions in the course of her employment at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in favor of less-qualified LGBTQ+ colleagues. The district court ruled that in order to proceed on a claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation, because of the plaintiff’s membership in a majority group, the plaintiff was required to provide, in addition to the standard elements of a Title VII claim, that background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant, the plaintiff’s employer is that “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Because the plaintiff was unable to meet this higher standard, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff’s employer. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Sixth Circuit, holding that the “background circumstances” rule is inconsistent with both the text of Title VII and longstanding precedent of the Supreme Court.
Writing for the Court, Justice Jackson wrote, “[a]s a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’ ” Ames vs. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., U.S., No. 23-1039 (June 5, 2025) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1) (emphasis added)). “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.” Id. The Court further relied on longstanding Supreme Court precedent, which “makes clear” that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not depend upon whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. According to the Ames decision, the background circumstances test “flouts that basic principle.”
This decision clarifies that the protections of Title VII apply equally to all individuals regardless of their membership in a majority group. This decision will likely have large implications in the context of discrimination litigation. These types of claims have been on the rise. This decision removes the obstacles certain majority plaintiffs faced previously in proving their claims and, therefore, may result in an increase in filings of discrimination claims by majority groups. Employers need to carefully review employment decisions regardless of whether employees fall into minority or majority groups, and always ensure decisions are supported by legitimate business reasons.
Read the decision here.
