The United States Supreme Court on June 5, 2025, in a rare unanimous decision, overturned a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that required a plaintiff, a heterosexual, to have evidence as part of her proofs to establish a prima facie case that she worked for the “unusual employer” who would discriminate against an employee who is a member of the majority.
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. __ (2025), Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, held that Title VII protects against discrimination against “individuals” without suggesting that a member of the majority has any additional burden of proof beyond what a member of the minority is required to show to establish a prima facie case. This holding, therefore, makes it much easier for a white or male employee, or any other employee who is a member of the majority under Title VII, to be successful on a reverse discrimination claim.
This decision is in-line with existing federal law in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as held in Iadimarco v. Runyon, 190 F.3d 151, 161 (3d Cir. 1999) but contrary to long held precedent under New Jersey state law. See Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co., 117 N.J. 539 (1990) and Zack v Integra Lifesciences Corp. (N.J. App. Div. Mar. 21, 2022). Therefore, this is one of those relatively rare instances where federal law and state law under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination differ. The take-away for plaintiffs in New Jersey is that a reverse discrimination claim will likely fare better in federal court under Title VII unless, of course, our state Supreme Court eventually decides to follow the holding in Ames.
