As widely expected, the Supreme Court's June 5, 2025 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services confirmed that a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination under Title VII cannot be held to a different, heightened evidentiary standard if they belong to a majority group.
The case involved Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services denied her a promotion because of her sexual orientation, selecting a gay candidate instead. At issue was the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" pleading standard for so-called reverse discrimination cases, which required a majority-group plaintiff to show that the employer was the "unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." This standard created a circuit split, with four other circuits (Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and DC Circuits) applying similar burdens to majority-group plaintiffs and the remaining circuits not requiring a heightened pleading standard.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Jackson, held that Title VII does not distinguish between majority- and minority-group plaintiffs, rejecting the Sixth Circuit's rule as inconsistent with the statute's focus on individual protections. "Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," wrote Justice Jackson.
Though the case did not directly concern corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and initiatives, the decision arrives amid a national debate on, and increased attention to, corporate DEI practices. Justice Thomas brought this backdrop into stark relief in his concurrence, observing: "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans. Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority."
The Ames decision simplifies the pathway for majority-group plaintiffs to file claims under Title VII. Together with last year's unanimous Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the threshold of harm necessary to state a claim of discrimination under Title VII, the Ames decision may lead to an increase in claims, including by those challenging DEI initiatives as unlawful discrimination.
Notwithstanding Ames and Muldrow, employers committed to fostering inclusive workplaces may continue to pursue a range of thoughtfully designed, lawful programs and practices in furtherance of that commitment. Employers are advised, however, to regularly assess such programs and practices in light of the evolving legal landscape.
WilmerHale's Anti-Discrimination and Labor and Employment Practices are closely monitoring developments in this area and regularly advising clients on designing and implementing lawful workplace initiatives.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
