Written by Moiré Morón, Vice President, Claims Advocacy
In today’s deeply polarized climate, workplace diversity has shifted from a moral commitment to a complex legal balancing act. Several states have enacted sweeping bans on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, creating new legal challenges for employers striving to foster inclusive workplaces. At the same time, longstanding federal protections – such as Title VII – continue to mandate equal opportunity for all. The rise in reverse discrimination lawsuits signals a stark legal and cultural shift.
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, ruling unanimously that plaintiffs from majority groups – such as heterosexual individuals – are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to pursue employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ames Case Background
At the center of the case is Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman and longtime employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services. She alleged that she was denied a promotion in favor of a less qualified lesbian colleague, was subsequently demoted from her position, and that her former role was thereafter given to a gay male colleague. Ames sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asserting that the adverse employment actions constituted unlawful sexual orientation discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The trial court granted summary judgement to the agency, applying the judicially created “background circumstances” rule, a standard that imposes a heightened burden on majority-group plaintiffs, to the McDonnell Douglas framework. Traditionally, disparate treatment claims are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework. A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, after which the employer must offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse action. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the reason is pretextual. The Court noted that “[f]or most plaintiffs, the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework… is ‘not onerous.’”1
However, under the “background circumstances” doctrine, a majority-group plaintiff has the added burden of presenting preliminary evidence that the employer is “the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”2 The District Court concluded that Ames had failed to make a showing of discriminatory motive because she had not presented evidence of “background circumstances” suggesting that the agency was the rare employer who discriminates against members of majority. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that Ames had not produced sufficient evidence to meet the heightened standard of proof.
Protecting Individuals, Not Groups
Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cut through decades of judicial ambiguity and resolved a split amongst the circuit courts with a clear message: “Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who the victim is,” noting that “Title VII protects individuals, not groups.” She wrote further that,
"Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs … The law’s focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic.3 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."4
The Court’s decision rejected the “background circumstances” requirement that some lower courts had used to discredit majority-group plaintiff before they even reached a jury. In doing so, the justices underscored a fundamental truth: that justice cannot mean one set of rules for some and a steeper climb for others.
This decision may encourage more reverse discrimination claims because it lowers the procedural barrier for majority-group plaintiffs to bring Title VII claims. It also may motivate organizations to review their hiring and promotion practices and their management and professional liability coverage.
A Focus On the Letter of the Law
In an era where consensus on the Court is elusive, the Courts ruling was unanimous, highlighting the Court’s focus on textualism, where laws are applied based on a strict interpretation of statutory text, without the consideration of external factors. The Court’s more conservative voices, including Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, agreed that the additional burden placed on plaintiffs like Ames lacked textual support in Title VII. In his concurrence, Justice Thomas noted that “[j]udge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants and cause confusion for courts.”5
As the case returns to the lower courts, the Supreme Court’s message is unmistakable — that discrimination claims must be judged on the strength of the evidence, and not the identity of the person who brings them. Fairness under the law is for all.
Sources
- Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs, 605 U.S. (2025) quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
- Ames quoting Ames v. Ohio Dept of Youth Servs. No. 2:20-cv-05935, 2023 WL 2539214 (S.D. Ohio Mar.16, 2023).
- Ames quoting Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644, 659 (2020)
- Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, slip op at 6 (U.S. 2025) Ibid.
