Takeaways
- The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a heightened standard for reverse discrimination claims under Title VII.
- This decision, combined with Muldrow, lowers the bar for employees to bring discrimination lawsuits.
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ("SCOTUS") issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which rejected a heightened standard for pursuing reverse discrimination claims under Title VII. Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII alleging that she was discriminated against for being heterosexual when she was denied a promotion and then demoted in favor of homosexual coworkers. Ames applied for a newly created and open position within the Ohio Department of Your Services ("ODYS"). Not only did Ames not receive the job, she was subsequently demoted to her prior position with a reduced salary. The ODYS hired a lesbian woman for the position Ames sought. It then hired a gay man to replace Ames in her program leadership position after she had been demoted.
Ames sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging reverse discrimination based on her sexual orientation under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to the ODYS, and Ames appealed. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision because Ames failed to establish the "background circumstances" needed to support a "reverse" discrimination claim under Title VII. The "background circumstances" in "reverse" discrimination cases under Title VII had been adopted by several Circuit Courts of Appeal, including the Sixth, Seventh, Eight, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, and required plaintiffs who were asserting "reverse" discrimination claims to demonstrate that a particular employer has "reason or inclination" to discriminate against the majority group (e.g., men, whites, heterosexuals). The Third and Eleventh Circuits rejected this heightened standard.
SCOTUS in Ames unanimously held that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in applying a "background circumstances" requirement in "reverse" discrimination cases, resolving the Circuit split on this issue. Justice Jackson authored the majority opinion and wrote, "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone." Justice Jackson added that "the background circumstances test rule flouts [the] basic principle" of discrimination claims—which is that demonstrating discrimination in a case like Ames's "does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group."
Possible Implications for Employers
The Ames decision has significant implications for employers, particularly when considered in concert with another recent Supreme Court decision, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. As we previously noted, the Muldrow opinion rejected longstanding precedent that required a plaintiff to have experienced "significant harm" in order to successfully prosecute a discrimination claim under federal law. After Muldrow, any discrimination that resulted in any harm became actionable.
Given the current administration's focus on dismantling DEI initiatives, the combination of Ames and Muldrow may result in significant liability risk for employers. Policies that were once permitted, or even encouraged, such as mentoring programs or affinity group programs for minorities, could now be used as evidence of actionable discrimination against the majority. The lowered bar to liability put in place by Ames for so-called "reverse" discrimination cases may signal the beginning of a new wave of claims against employers.
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.
