Supreme Court Reverses “Reverse Discrimination” Employment Law Standard

Factual Background

On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services.

Plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the “Department”) in various roles since 2004. In 2019, Ames applied and was interviewed for a new management position. Ultimately, the position was given to a homosexual woman. The Department then demoted Ames and filled her previous position with a homosexual man. Following both of these decisions, Ames filed suit in federal court alleging violations of Title VII, alleging that she was discriminated against based on sexual orientation (a form of sex discrimination recognized by the Supreme Court) when she was overlooked for the promotion and demoted.

Legal Background

Before the Supreme Court heard Ames, there was disagreement across federal appellate courts regarding how to analyze “reverse” employment discrimination claims, or claims brought by employees belonging to a majority group (e.g. those who identify as heterosexual) under Title VII. Typically, an employee must first provide evidence to support an inference that their employer demonstrated discriminatory motive. However, under a “reverse discrimination” analysis, some courts required that employees of a majority group show additional “background circumstances” that indicated an employer engaged in discrimination against a majority group.

In Ames, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, concluding that Ames failed to meet the additional “background circumstances” standard in her attempt to prove her discrimination claims. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision based on similar reasoning.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the unanimous decision of the Court, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurring. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit, finding that the “reverse discrimination” standard imposing additional evidentiary burdens on employees of majority groups contravened Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain text of Title VII.

As to prior Supreme Court precedent, the Court reviewed early Title VII case law including McDonald v. Sante Fe Trail Transportation Co., quoting that “Title VII prohibit[ed] racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they [Black].” 427 U.S. 273 (1976). The decision also quoted from the more recent Bostock v. Clayton County decision, affirming that Title VII applied to sexual orientation, reiterating that “[Title VII] works to protect individuals of both sexes from discrimination, and does so equally. 590 U.S. 644 (2020). Finally, the Court referenced the seminal McDonnell Douglas case when cautioning against inflexible applications of McDonnell Douglas’s first prong requiring proof of discriminatory intent by employers.

As to the language of Title VII, the Court noted that the law makes no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the law prohibits discrimination against “any individual.” According to the Court, “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”

Accordingly, the Court vacated the lower courts’ decisions based on the heightened evidentiary standard and remanded the case back to the lower courts for a new ruling without imposition of that additional burden on Ames.

Takeaways

The Ames decision resolves a circuit court split on the application of Title VII to employment discrimination claims brought by employees from majority groups, while also underscoring that all employees have the same rights, and evidentiary standards, under Title VII. Note that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes federal courts in Illinois, previously applied the “reverse discrimination” standard struck down by the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court’s decision does not affect previous Seven Circuit decisions, moving forward the Seventh Circuit will no longer apply the previous reverse discrimination analysis.

Ames also serves as an important reminder that employment decisions, including those related to hiring, firing and demotion, should not be based on race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin or other protected characteristics.

Please contact your Robbins Schwartz attorney with questions regarding the Supreme Court’s decision or its impact on your employment practices.