Labor & Employment Developments Blog

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court lowered the bar for majority-group plaintiffs – ruling they are not required to meet a higher standard to bring reverse discrimination claims. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. that members of majority groups alleging employment discrimination under Title VII need not meet a higher evidentiary standard. This decision invalidates the “background circumstances” rule previously applied by the Sixth Circuit, which required that majority-group plaintiffs demonstrate specific evidence suggesting their employer is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.

Background

The petitioner, a heterosexual woman who worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, claims she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. Ames alleged she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman, and later replaced with a gay man. For more background on the case, see our October 2024 blog post: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Title VII Reverse Discrimination Case.

In employment discrimination cases involving minority-group plaintiffs, courts often apply the McDonnell Douglas framework, which allows plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case by showing that the employer acted with a discriminatory motive. However, in reverse discrimination claims brought by majority-group plaintiffs, some federal circuits have imposed an additional burden of proof. Under this heightened standard, majority-group plaintiffs must satisfy the “background circumstances” requirement either by presenting evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group. On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued the highly anticipated decision, unanimously striking down the “background circumstances” requirement.

Supreme Court’s Decision

Justice Brown authored the unanimous opinion, emphasizing that Title VII does not differentiate between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. The Court reiterated that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination against any individual, focusing on individuals rather than groups. Justice Brown explained, “[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 plaintiffs alone.” Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., __U.S.___ (2025).

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court to apply the proper prima facie standard.

Implications

This decision greatly impacts reverse discrimination suits against employers, lowering the bar for plaintiffs to file such actions. Furthermore, the ruling may have broader implications for workplace diversity and inclusion policies.

This decision also resolves the divide among federal circuits regarding the evidentiary standard for majority-group plaintiffs in discrimination cases. The Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth circuits had adopted the “background circumstances” rule, while the Third and Eleventh circuits had expressly rejected the rule. The ruling also resolves the split among the lower courts over the elements of a prima facie case in reverse discrimination Title VII cases.

Justice Thomas Concurring Opinion

Worth noting is Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion. Justice Thomas authored the concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch, agreeing with the Court’s decision but expressing concern over the use of judicial doctrines that lack a foundation in statutory text. He criticized rules like the “background circumstances” requirement, which he argued is a judge-made rule lacking any basis in the text of Title VII. As in the recent Ronald Hittle v. City of Stockton, California case, Justice Thomas urged the Court to discontinue the use of such frameworks, including the longstanding McDonnell Douglas framework. Justice Thomas notes, “McDonnell Douglas framework lacks any basis in the text of Title VII and has proved difficult for courts to apply.” For more on Justice Thomas’ argument against the McDonnell Douglas framework, see our blog post: Shifting Burdens: Is McDonnell Douglas Past Its Prime?