Overview
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved the split among federal circuits and held that the same standard used to evaluate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to all plaintiffs, regardless of whether the plaintiff is a member of a minority or majority group.
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, which was an appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court analyzed the standard in “reverse” discrimination cases under Title VII. “Reverse” discrimination refers to discrimination experienced by a member of a majority group by or in favor of a member of a group that historically faced discrimination. In Ames, appellant Marlean Ames (who identifies as heterosexual) worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the Department) for 15 years when she interviewed for a new management position. The Department selected a lesbian candidate for the position instead of Ames, demoted Ames from her position, and replaced her with a gay male employee. Ames sued the Department, alleging that she was denied the promotion and ultimately demoted in violation of Title VII because of her heterosexual orientation.
Vacating the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the requirement that plaintiffs of a majority group must satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim. The “background circumstances” rule required Title VII plaintiffs who are members of majority groups to show that the circumstances of the adverse action establish that the employer discriminates against the majority. This standard added a heightened evidentiary requirement for majority plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework for assessing Title VII claims. In Ames, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the background circumstances standard violated Title VII and Supreme Court precedent.
As the Ames decision has clarified the standard to be used in all Title VII cases, employers should ensure that each adverse employment action is made based on consistently applied practices and policies, without regard to any personal characteristics covered by Title VII and state and local antidiscrimination laws. Any practices that give preference to historically disadvantaged groups must be scrutinized and assessed for the risk of potential “reverse” discrimination claims. Employers should also evaluate all employee complaints equally and refrain from giving special consideration to complaints made by workers in what have historically been protected classes.
