On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services in which the Plaintiff alleged reverse discrimination based on sexual orientation. Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 as an employee at the youth services agency, where she was promoted to an administrator position in 2014. Ames applied for a promotion to become a Bureau Chief in 2019. She did not receive that job and was instead demoted. Her employer promoted a gay man to fill her former administrator position, and later selected a gay woman for the Bureau Chief job. Ames sued her employer alleging that it discriminated against her on the basis of her sexual orientation as a heterosexual female in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The district court ruled for the Defendant on summary judgment, determining that Ames had not met her burden to show a discriminatory motive on the part of the employer under the McDonnel Douglas burden shifting test because she failed to show the additional element of “background circumstances” to indicate that the employer had a bias against heterosexuals. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
The well-established McDonnel Douglas test is a three-step inquiry. The plaintiff bears the “initial burden” of “establishing a prima facie case” by producing enough evidence to support an inference of discriminatory motive. If the plaintiff clears that hurdle, the burden then “shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Finally, if the employer articulates such a justification, the plaintiff must then have a “fair opportunity” to show that the stated justification “was in fact pretext” for discrimination. In ruling for the Defendant, the district court and the Sixth Circuit created an additional hurdle for Plaintiffs who are members of majority groups. As the Sixth Circuit put it, Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.”
The Supreme Court reviewed this case and in a 9 to 0 opinion ruled in favor of Ames, invalidating the additional element for majority plaintiffs and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.
This case stands as one of the most stunning misuses of judicial resources we have seen in employment law cases for some time. The very idea that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on protected class implies that members of a majority group must meet a higher standard to avail themselves of Title VII’s protections, is itself discriminatory. The Supreme Court had previously addressed the idea of different standards for majority and minority plaintiffs in 1976. In McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., the employer argued that certain forms of discrimination against white employees fell outside the reach of Title VII. The Court rejected that argument, holding that “Title VII prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in that case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.”
So, what is the takeaway for employers after the Ames decision? In the current political climate of anti-DEI efforts, and in light of both this case and the $25 million dollar award to a white manager claiming reverse discrimination in Phillips v. Starbucks, the Plaintiff’s bar may well see an opportunity here. Gone are the days when an HR professional could rest easy in the face of a discrimination complaint by a white male. All complaints of discrimination must be investigated with vigor, regardless of the demographics of the complainant. The term reverse discrimination is a misnomer. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who the alleged victim is.
