The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, holding that members of a majority group, such as males, heterosexual and white individuals, do not have to meet a higher evidentiary standard than a member of a minority group when bringing discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case is Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.
The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman. Ames was denied a promotion to a management position in favor of a lesbian woman. A few days after Ames interviewed for the management position, she was demoted to a secretarial role resulting in a significant pay cut. The agency then hired a gay man to fill the vacant position that Ames previously held. Ames filed a lawsuit against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation in violation of Title VII.
The federal district court granted summary judgment dismissing Ames’ lawsuit. The federal district court, citing precedent, stated that “[w]here the plaintiff is a member of a majority group…she bears an additional ‘burden of demonstrating that that [s]he was intentionally discriminated against ‘despite [her] majority status.” The court went on to state that, “a plaintiff alleging reverse discrimination must show that ‘background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’” The district concluded that Ames failed to produce evidence of the required “background circumstances” and, therefore, dismissed her lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, point out that “Ames is a heterosexual…which means she must make a showing in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion for the unanimous Supreme Court striking down the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule. The Court stated that “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone…the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”
Employer Takeaway
Employers should understand that all discrimination claims—whether brought by a member of a majority or minority group—will be evaluated under the same legal standard. Therefore, all internal complaints of discrimination must be investigated promptly and thoroughly. In addition, the Court’s decision reinforces the long-standing principle that employment decisions must be made, and all policies must be applied, in a neutral manner based on legitimate business considerations and not on any protected characteristic.
For more information, contact:
Nick Zaino
Partner
[email protected]
203.5784270
This information is for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not establish any attorney-client relationship.