On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, significantly impacting how majority-group discrimination claims are evaluated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In some jurisdictions, lower courts had required majority-group plaintiffs to provide additional “background circumstances” to support a suspicion of discrimination—a standard not applied to minority-group plaintiffs. In Ames, for example, the Sixth Circuit required a white (majority-group) plaintiff to provide background circumstances suggesting that the employer was an unusual employer that discriminated against a historically favored group—an extra burden not imposed on minority-group plaintiffs. The Supreme Court rejected the “background circumstances” rule because it was inconsistent with Title VII’s text and focus on individual protections, noting “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” As a result, Title VII claims should be evaluated under a single standard applicable to all, and claims brought by majority-group individuals face no higher burden than claims brought by protected-class individuals.
Title VII states that it is unlawful for employers “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to [their] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” The Supreme Court focused on the “any individual” language, reasoning that the determination of Title VII claims should be focused on an individual’s circumstances, not those of a group. Because the “background circumstances” test heightened the evidentiary burden for some, but not all, individuals, the test was misaligned with Title VII’s purpose and was eliminated.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ames eliminates a conflict in the way that lower courts evaluated majority-group Title VII claims and streamlines the process for majority-group individuals to assert discrimination under Title VII. While the ruling does not change the law in the Fourth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the federal courts in North Carolina and several nearby states, it further emphasizes the Court’s repeated insistence that discrimination based on prohibited categories is unlawful no matter who is the target of discrimination. The Supreme Court’s focus on neutrality in Ames bears at least some resemblance to the Court’s recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, in which the Court ruled that race-based “affirmative-action” in most college admission programs is unconstitutional. Combined, these decisions seem likely to result in an increase in litigation initiated by workers who are in what historically have been considered “majority” groups (e.g., workers who are white, straight, male, etc.)—in other words, an increase in so-called “reverse discrimination” claims.
The Ames ruling reinforces the principle that discrimination, in any form, is unlawful. Before proceeding with any adverse employment decision, employers should evaluate the action through a discrimination lens—even if the impact on the employee seems minor or difficult to quantify and even if the employee is a member of what historically has been considered a majority-group.
