Have you been discriminated against in the workplace, even though you may be a member of a "majority" group?
"Reverse" discrimination is not uncommon, and a recent U.S. Supreme Court case examined the question of whether an individual who belongs to a "majority" group needs to demonstrate so-called "background circumstances," suggesting that their employer is "the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority" in order to establish a case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Ames), the Ohio Department of Youth Services hired Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, in 2004 and promoted her to administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2014. In 2017, Ames was assigned a new supervisor, who was gay, and reported to an Assistant Director Julie Walburn, who was heterosexual. Then, in 2019, another heterosexual employee was appointed as the department's director, and in December 2018, Ames received a generally positive performance evaluation.
However, in April 2019, Ames applied for the position of Bureau Chief of Quality, but was not selected. Shortly after, Ames' supervisor suggested that Ames consider retirement, and on May 10, 2019, Ames was demoted from her PREA Administrator position, resulting in a significant pay cut. The Department then promoted a 25-year-old gay man, to the PREA administrator position, and later that year, a gay woman, was chosen as Bureau Chief of Quality. Following these events, Ames filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and then sued the Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Department, holding that Ames lacked evidence of "background circumstances" that was necessary to establish a prima facie (at first sight) case for her claim based on sexual orientation, and that Ames lacked evidence of pretext for purposes of her sex-discrimination claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision in Ames, decided June 5, 2025, determined that employers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when they intentionally discriminate against any individual—regardless of their inclusion in a majority or minority group—on the basis of protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Court stated that Title VII does not impose a higher evidentiary burden on individuals who belong to majority groups than non-majority groups.
What is Title VII?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and transgender status), and national origin. It provides employees with the right to file complaints against discriminatory practices in the workplace. Title VII is enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which investigates complaints and can take legal action against employers who violate the law.
Employers
Employers may face potential increases in complaints from majority-group employees claiming race, gender or sexual orientation based-discrimination, that may be related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. Employers may want to consider reassessing budgets for legal reserves, audit their DEI programs as they relate to risk mitigation efforts and examine workforce and pay equity audits to ensure against potentially costly claims and reputational damage.
New Cases
The Ames' ruling will likely lead to future complaints filed by employees against employers who do not consider themselves as members of protected classes. Previously, individuals considered "non-minorities" were unaware they could file complaints or hesitated to do so because the standard seemed like it would be difficult to achieve.
However, the Supreme Court's ruling clarifies and confirms that the standard of proof for non-minorities to file reverse discrimination claims equates to the already well-established discrimination standards, while other legal standards of proof required for civil rights claims are not affected.
Take Action if You've Faced Reverse Discrimination
A knowledgeable employment attorney can help you gain an understanding of the unique difficulties each workplace conflict presents and work toward a solution that benefits you.
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.
