Employment Law Report
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling in a“Reverse Discrimination” Case and Its Potential Impact on Employers
Written by: R. Joseph Stennis, Jr. with the assistance of Summer Associates, Jon Michael Gaudin and Colin Flood
In a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) held that the Sixth Circuit erred in applying a heightened standard to Marlean Ames’ (“Ames”) employment discrimination claim based on her status as a heterosexual white woman, thereby affirming that Title VII protections apply equally to individuals in majority groups.
Ames was hired by the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“Department”) in 2004. In 2014, she was promoted to an administrator position. In 2019, Ames applied and was interviewed for a Bureau Chief position at the Department. Not only was she denied that position, she was also demoted from her current Department role and her salary was cut in half. Additionally, the Department hired a lesbian woman to fill the Bureau Chief position that Ames applied for, and a gay man was placed in her prior administrative position.
Ames filed a lawsuit against the Department in federal court alleging employment discrimination based on her sexual orientation. The case worked its way up to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals where it affirmed the district court’s ruling that Ames must show “background circumstances” to support her allegation for a reverse discrimination claim. The McDonnell Douglas test sets forth the typical and traditional framework for evaluating disparate treatment claims that rest on circumstantial evidence. The framework essentially is a three-part test that first requires litigants to make a prima facie case showing that the defendant-employer acted with a discriminatory motive. Here where Ames is a member of the majority, she is required to make an additional showing of “background circumstances.” This additional showing requires majority group members to establish that their defendant-employer is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Put simply, the “background circumstances” rule requires majority group members (like Ames) alleging discrimination to meet a higher standard than minority group members, even though they could be suing under the same laws.
SCOTUS ruled in favor of Ames 9-0, holding the “background circumstances” requirement was inconsistent with the text of federal employment discrimination law. The Court concluded that Title VII prohibits discrimination against any individual, no matter if they are a member of a minority or majority group. Justice Jackson, who wrote the unanimous opinion, specifically stated that a discrimination case “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group” and that “[t]he ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle.” The case was remanded back to the lower district court to apply a proper standard consistent with SCOTUS’ ruling.
This widely expected ruling confirmed that all plaintiffs suing under Title VII will be held to the same standard, regardless of having either minority or majority group status.
The potential impact of the Ames case on employers should not be undervalued. This ruling will make it potentially easier for majority group litigants to bring claims against their employer under discrimination laws. Discrimination cases brought by majority-group members will now be assessed under the same standard as all other claimants. Being proactive to minimize exposure to such actions will be key. Employers should continue to review their internal practices to make sure they are in compliance with this decision. No matter the employee demographics, any and all complaints of discrimination should be investigated vigorously. Employers should focus on utilizing merit-based criteria when determining employment decisions to ensure that they are in compliance with this new ruling. In addition, employers will want to demonstrate transparency through clear documentation of hiring, promotion, and demotion decisions to defend against potential claims. It is also wise for employers to audit past employment decisions to ensure those decisions were not made with potential bias by either favoring or disfavoring any groups. Employers should plan to provide training for all HR personnel and managers on the new legal parameters when it comes to employment discrimination to ensure compliance with all federal discrimination laws.
If you have questions regarding the Ames decision and the implications of this decision, contact a member of Wyatt’s Labor and Employment team. Click here for the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding this case.
