On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse discrimination). Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025).This ruling is expected to make it easier for reverse discrimination claimants to bring their claims in federal court.
The Lawsuit. The plaintiff, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services. In 2019, the plaintiff applied for a promotion and the agency interviewed her but ultimately hired a lesbian woman for the role. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff was demoted and her vacant position filled by a gay man. She filed suit, claiming that the agency discriminated against her as a heterosexual. The district court granted summary judgment based on Sixth Circuit precedent requiring majority plaintiffs to show "background circumstances suggesting that the agency was the rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group," "in addition to" the prima facie case of discrimination non-majority group plaintiffs must show. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
The Opinion. Authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court concluded in a relatively brief opinion that the "background circumstances" heightened evidentiary standard could not be "squared with the text of Title VII or our longstanding precedents," because "Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs."
The Court's opinion struck down all similar heightened evidentiary standards previously adopted by four other Circuit Courts of Appeals and the District of Columbia.
The Concurrences. Although joining in the Court's opinion, Justice Thomas's concurrence (joined by Justice Gorsuch) criticized "atextual" "judge-made doctrines," DEI initiatives, and affirmative action plans. The concurrence focused significantly on the burden-shifting framework to evaluate Title VII cases attributed to McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). In what may be a harbinger of things to come, Justice Thomas seems to invite litigants to challenge the framework so that the Court could eventually "consider whether the McDonnell Douglas framework is a workable and useful evidentiality tool."
Expected Effects. The Court's opinion allows plaintiff to continue her lawsuit in the Ohio federal district court. Beyond plaintiff, it is expected that more reverse discrimination claimants will pursue their claims in the coming days, as well as potential challenges to the long-standing McDonnell-Douglas framework.
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.
