On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that strengthens the rights of employees filing reverse discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the federal law which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Until this decision, certain federal circuit courts required a heightened evidentiary burden for members of a majority group to establish discrimination, as compared to members of a minority group. This ruling eliminates any heightened evidentiary burden for majority group members. 

In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___, (2025), a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that members of a majority group are subject to the same standards of proof to establish discrimination under Title VII as members of a minority group. As detailed in Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinion, the underlying case involved an individual, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the “Department”) since 2004. Id. at *2. In 2019, Ms. Ames applied and interviewed for a new position within the Department. Id. Ultimately, the Department hired another candidate for the position – a lesbian woman. Id. Ms. Ames was subsequently demoted from her existing position, and the Department hired a gay man to fill her previous role. Id. Ms. Ames filed a lawsuit against the Department under Title VII, alleging she was denied the management position and demoted because of her sexual orientation – a heterosexual woman. Id. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the Department, and the Sixth Circuit Appellate Court affirmed the District Court. Id. at *2-3. As set forth in the opinion, the District Court analyzed the claims under the traditional McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) burden shifting analysis, which has long established the framework for evaluating disparate treatment claims based on circumstantial evidence. Id. As described by the Supreme Court, the initial step under that analysis is the plaintiff must establish prima-facie showing that the defendant acted with a discriminatory motive. Id. *4. Upholding the District Court, the Sixth Circuit found that Ms. Ames had failed to meet her prima facie burden, because she had not shown “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminated against the majority.” Id. at *3. The Sixth Circuit ruled that as a straight woman, Ms. Ames was required to make an extra showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case.” Id.

The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit, finding that requiring a member of a majority group to demonstrate an additional evidentiary burden of “background circumstances” is contrary to the text of Title VII’s disparate treatment provision. Id. at *5. As described by Justice Jackson, that provision makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge an individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Id. Justice Jackson explains that “[b]y 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 plaintiff’s alone.” Id. at *6. 

By eliminating the “background circumstances” test for a majority group plaintiff to establish discrimination, the ruling reinforces that members of majority groups have the same protections against discrimination as members of minority-groups under Title VII. While the ruling may not change much in the circuit courts that have previously abandoned such a test, this ruling will have an immediate impact on other circuit courts that have required such heightened scrutiny. In addition to the Sixth Circuit (which encompasses Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee), four additional federal circuit courts have suggested that majority-group plaintiffs must satisfy a heightened burden. The additional Circuit Courts include: the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin); the Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota); the Tenth Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming); and the District of Columbia Circuits.