Written by Jeffrey Johnson and Ben Smith From Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP on June 12, 2025
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, significantly impacting how employment discrimination claims brought by members of a majority group—such as white or heterosexual employees—are evaluated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the Ames decision, the Court invalidated the more stringent burden of proof applied by several federal circuits where a majority group plaintiff claims disparate treatment based on their majority group status, often referred to as “reverse discrimination.”
By way of background, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision bars covered employers from intentionally discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation), or national origin. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ames, several federal appellate circuit courts—including the D.C. Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Tenth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit—had adopted a more stringent test for disparate treatment claims brought by majority groups. In addition to the well-established elements of a disparate treatment claim under Title VII, these courts added an additional burden for majority-group plaintiffs, requiring “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” This was known as the “background circumstances” rule.
In the Ames case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied this “background circumstances” rule to dispose of a disparate treatment claim brought by Marlene Ames, a heterosexual woman claiming she was denied a promotion because of her sexual orientation. However, the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision held that the elevated standard for majority group plaintiffs, like Ms. Ames, was inconsistent with Title VII’s text. The Supreme Court, therefore, effectively standardized the burden for majority and minority plaintiffs bringing Title VII claims. For the Court’s full opinion, click here.
As a result of this decision, employers covered by Title VII should expect that “reverse discrimination” claims will be analyzed in the same manner as any other claim for disparate treatment. As such, employers should be equally cognizant of potential claims by employees belonging to any protected class under Title VII, irrespective of membership in a historically disadvantaged or minority group. This is especially true where the Trump Administration and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have continued to emphasize federal anti-discrimination protections for majority group employees, with a particular emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives that may disadvantage such employees. Employers should also be aware of state and local anti-discrimination laws, which often create additional protected characteristics and further lessen the burden for employees to prove disparate treatment and related claims.
