On June 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision making it easier for employees to prove claims of so-called “reverse” discrimination (i.e., suits brought by a member of a majority group alleging to have been treated adversely because of their majority status). The ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services settled a circuit split under which some jurisdictions imposed the “background circumstances” requirement—a higher standard for these claims.
In Ames, a heterosexual woman who worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) was passed over for a management position that ultimately went to a lesbian woman. Ames was later demoted from her administrator role, which was filled by a gay man, and demoted to a secretarial position. The woman sued ODYS in federal court, alleging reverse sexual orientation discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
The Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for ODYS. It relied on Sixth Circuit caselaw that required a plaintiff alleging reverse discrimination—here, a straight employee claiming to have been discriminated against because she was not gay—to present evidence of background circumstances suggesting that the defendant was “the rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group.” Under established precedent, the court held a reverse-discrimination plaintiff had to make this showing in addition to the traditional elements of a prima facie discrimination claim.
Ames appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision, joining other circuits, including the Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth, that required reverse-discrimination plaintiffs to make this additional showing.
Ames then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in the context of Title VII’s statutory text. “Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs[.] 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.”
ODYS tried to argue that the “background circumstances” rule was not an additional element the plaintiff had to prove, but the Supreme Court noted that the Sixth Circuit expressly held that Ames’s duty to provide “background circumstances” was “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.” Thus, the Court rejected the argument and ultimately issued a unanimous ruling in favor of Ames, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson drafting the opinion.
The decision makes it easier for employees in the Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth circuits to allege and prove claims of reverse discrimination and provides a timely reminder for employers in all jurisdictions to ensure they have updated anti-discrimination policies and anti-harassment training programs.
