The U.S. Supreme Court set the record straight on June 5, 2025 — reminding employers that all employees are created equal when it comes to Title VII litigation in federal court.
The decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services answered a long-debated question in Title VII litigation: Do employees of a traditional “majority” group need to meet additional hurdles in order to prove their case?
Ames involved a so-called “reverse discrimination” case, i.e., a case in which a member of a traditional “majority” group alleged discrimination. The plaintiff, a heterosexual woman, brought suit in a federal court in Ohio against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services. It alleged that she was denied a promotion and then was later demoted because of her sexual orientation. In arguing she had been discriminated against, she noted that both the employee who received the promotion and the employee who replaced her after her own demotion were gay, although in both instances the decisionmakers were heterosexual.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the traditional burden-shifting standard of proof. Citing precedent from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the trial court noted that, as a heterosexual person (and thus, a member of a traditional “majority” group), the plaintiff was required to show evidence of “background circumstances” that could “support the suspicion that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Finding that the plaintiff failed to present any such evidence, the trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the Court’s unanimous opinion. The Court held that the “background circumstances” rule imposed an elevated standard of proof that was inconsistent with longstanding precedent and the text of Title VII. The Court reminded litigants that Title VII “draws no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” In addition, the Court reiterated that Title VII does not protect groups of people. Rather, it protects individuals on the basis of their individual protected characteristics. In other words, an employer who discriminates against an employee for their sexual orientation — whether heterosexual or otherwise — violates Title VII. For these reasons, the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit, vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In light of the Court’s opinion, employers should review their policies, procedures, and protocols — including those relating to investigating internal employee complaints — to ensure that instances of so-called “reverse discrimination” are being sufficiently addressed in the workplace and are not being evaluated against an elevated standard. Similarly, employers should consider eliminating any reference in their policies or protocols to so-called “reverse discrimination.”
[View source.]
