US Supreme Court Rules On Reverse Discrimination
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that reverse discrimination cases should be analyzed under the same burden of proof as other discrimination cases. The Court issued its decision in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services on June 5, 2025, rejecting the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ requirement that a member of a non-minority group make an extra showing of bias to prove discrimination.
Marlean Ames is a heterosexual woman who interviewed for a management position which was filled by a lesbian woman. Ames was then demoted from program administrator to secretary, and the agency hired a gay man to replace her. Ames contended that both employment actions were discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and filed a reverse discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The Ohio federal district court and the Sixth Circuit appellate court ruled against her, finding she failed to meet her burden of proof because she had not shown “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” – proof that would not be required in other Title VII cases.
Ames appealed to the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case on the issue of whether Title VII requires a heightened burden of proof in a reverse discrimination case. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Jackson, the Court rejected the extra burden of proof. The Court explained that Title VII makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . , because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The plain language of the law “draws no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” “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 Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he noted that the “judge-made” “background circumstances” rule is nonsensical “because it requires courts to assume that only an ‘unusual employer’ would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority.” He wrote: “But a number of this Nation’s largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups. American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans. Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.”
Ames’ case will now return to the Ohio federal court for further consideration. Whether or not she is able to prove discrimination, the Court’s common-sense ruling assures that her “reverse discrimination” case, and others like it, will be treated the same as all other Title VII claims. If you have questions about this ruling, please contact a KZA attorney.
KZA Employer Report articles are for general information only; they are not intended and should not be construed to be legal advice. Reading or replying to such articles does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In addition, because the subject matters and applicable laws discussed in Employer Report articles are often in a state of change and not always applicable to every type of business entity or organization, readers should consult with counsel before making decisions based on the same.