SCOTUS Rules for Plaintiff in “Reverse” Discrimination Case

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a pivotal case that clarifies the scope of protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit’s requirement for majority-group plaintiffs to show “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of discrimination is inconsistent with Title VII and its precedents. This decision ensures that all individuals, whether part of a majority or minority group, are equally protected from workplace discrimination, marking a significant step toward uniformity in employment law.

Background of the Case

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, began working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004, taking on various roles over the years. In 2017, she was reassigned to a new supervisor, a lesbian woman. In 2019, Ames applied for a promotion to the position of bureau chief of quality but was not selected; instead, a lesbian co-worker was hired. Shortly afterward, Ames was demoted from her role as program administrator, and a 25-year-old gay man was appointed to that position. Believing these actions were motivated by discrimination based on her sexual orientation, Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, a decision affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, which requires plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. However, it imposed an additional requirement for Ames, as a member of a majority group (heterosexuals in this context), to provide “background circumstances” suggesting that her employer unusually discriminates against the majority group.

Legal Context: Title VII and the McDonnell Douglas Framework

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a cornerstone of U.S. employment law, prohibiting discrimination in employment based on protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), the Supreme Court established a framework for proving discrimination in cases lacking direct evidence. Under this framework, a plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case by showing:

1. They are a member of a protected class.

2. They were qualified for the position.

3. They suffered an adverse employment action.

4. The employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications or treated similarly situated employees more favorably.

If the plaintiff meets this burden, the employer must provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action. The plaintiff then has the opportunity to prove that the employer’s reason is pretextual.

In Ames v. Ohio, the Sixth Circuit added a fifth element for majority-group plaintiffs: they must show “background circumstances” to support the suspicion that the employer is an unusual one that discriminates against the majority. This requirement was at the heart of the Supreme Court’s review, as it created a higher evidentiary standard for majority-group plaintiffs compared to their minority-group counterparts.

The Background Circumstances Test

The “background circumstances” test, as applied by the Sixth Circuit and several other federal circuits (including the Eighth, Seventh, D.C., and Tenth), required plaintiffs from majority groups—such as heterosexuals, men, or white individuals—to provide additional evidence to support a discrimination claim under Title VII. This test stemmed from the assumption that discrimination against majority groups is less common, thus necessitating proof that the employer is an “unusual” one that discriminates against the majority. Examples of such evidence might include patterns of hiring or promotion favoring minority groups, statistical disparities, or specific policies suggesting bias against the majority. In Ames v. Ohio, the Sixth Circuit found that Ames failed to meet this heightened standard, as she could not sufficiently demonstrate that her employer had a practice of discriminating against heterosexual employees. This requirement created a higher evidentiary burden for majority-group plaintiffs compared to minority-group plaintiffs, who were not subject to this additional hurdle under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

The Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” to satisfy the prima facie burden under Title VII. This question addressed a circuit split, as four other federal circuits (Eighth, Seventh, D.C., and Tenth) imposed similar heightened standards, while others did not.

Supreme Court Decision

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Court’s precedents. The Court emphasized that Title VII protects “any individual” from discrimination, without distinguishing between majority and minority groups. The ruling vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the lower courts to apply the standard prima facie requirements without the additional burden.

The Court relied on precedents such as Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), which established that Title VII focuses on fair treatment of individuals, and McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. (1976), which confirmed that the statute protects all employees, regardless of their group status. The Court also cited Teamsters v. United States (1977), which cautioned against rigid prima facie standards that could undermine Title VII’s purpose.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, filed a concurring opinion criticizing the McDonnell Douglas framework itself. Thomas argued that the framework has led to confusion and suggested that the Court should reconsider its use in future cases, potentially signaling a broader reevaluation of employment discrimination law.

Broader Impact

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio carries significant implications for employment law by reinforcing that Title VII protects all individuals equally, eliminating the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” requirement for majority-group plaintiffs. This streamlining of the prima facie standard promotes fairness and consistency, potentially increasing discrimination lawsuits from majority-group members, though the overall burden of proof remains unchanged. While not directly addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, the ruling prompts employers to review hiring and promotion practices to ensure compliance with Title VII’s non-discrimination mandates, resolving a circuit split for uniform application nationwide. Justice Thomas’s concurrence, joined by Justice Gorsuch, hints at future scrutiny of the McDonnell Douglas framework, signaling potential shifts in how employment discrimination cases are litigated.

Additional Considerations

The decision has sparked discussions about its implications for workplace policies. For instance, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and other civil rights organizations filed an amicus brief emphasizing the importance of historical and contextual factors in employment discrimination cases, arguing that the Sixth Circuit reached the correct result despite its flawed legal reasoning (NAACP LDF). This perspective highlights the ongoing debate about balancing protections for all groups while addressing historical disparities.

Employers may need to strengthen documentation of their hiring and promotion decisions to demonstrate non-discriminatory intent, particularly in light of potential increases in reverse discrimination claims. The ruling also underscores the importance of judicial consistency, as varying standards across circuits had created uncertainty for both plaintiffs and employers.

Ames v. Ohio is a landmark decision that upholds the principle of equal protection under Title VII, ensuring that all individuals can pursue discrimination claims without facing additional hurdles based on their group status. By rejecting the “background circumstances” rule, the Supreme Court has clarified the legal standard for employment discrimination cases and resolved a circuit split, promoting uniformity across federal courts. While the decision may lead to more lawsuits from majority-group plaintiffs, it does not alter the fundamental burden of proof, and employers can continue to defend against claims by providing legitimate reasons for their actions. The ruling also signals potential future changes to employment discrimination law, particularly with respect to the McDonnell Douglas framework, making it a case to watch for employers, employees, and legal scholars alike.

---