Labor & Employment News Alert

Supreme Court Opens the Door Wider for Reverse-Discrimination Claims

June 5, 2025

By: Chad J. Sullivan

Today, in a 9-0 opinion, the Court abandoned the Sixth Circuit’s “background-circumstances” rule, which had forced majority-group plaintiffs to clear a higher evidentiary bar at step one of the McDonnell Douglas framework. in Ames v. Ohio Dept of Youth Services decided today. Going forward, straight, white, male—or any “majority”—employees face the same prima-facie burden as everyone else under Title VII. 

Case Background – Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs.

Marlean Ames had over twenty years’ experience at the Ohio Department of Youth Services when she applied for a promotion in 2019.  She lost the job to a lesbian colleague, and then saw her own administrator post handed to a gay man. Convinced the her heterosexual status had controlled her position, she sued under Title VII. Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit dismissed her complaint, insisting that majority-group plaintiffs like Ames must satisfy the “background-circumstances” rule by showing their employer is the rare outfit that discriminates against the majority. With the circuits split on that requirement, the Supreme Court stepped in, unanimously wiped away the heightened hurdle, and returned the case to the District Court to review under the ordinary McDonnell Douglas test. 

What the Court Held

• The "background circumstances" rule which requires a majority group to satisfy a heightened standard does not square with the language of Title VII. Title VII protects any individual; nothing in the statute permits extra proof from one demographic over another.  
• The Court resolved a split in the Circuits split. Five circuits imposed the heightened test; seven did not. The Court unified the standard and remanded.  
• In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Gorsuch) suggested that the entire McDonnell Douglas scheme may be ripe for re-examination.

Why It Matters

1. Without a “heightened standard,” expect more reverse discrimination lawsuits, at least in the five circuits with this former standard.
2. Now is the time to perform a compliance check. Employers should look at promotion, discipline, and DEI programs to ensure uniform, documented criteria for hiring and promotions.
3. The Court's textualist trend continues. In line with Bostock and the 2024 affirmative-action ruling, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Court again rejects carve-outs not found in statutory text.

Practical Takeaways

• Ames has a substantial impact on day-to-day employment litigation.
• Human-resources teams should review promotion and disciplinary policies and decision-making processes to confirm that decision-makers apply the same standards to all workers and that the paperwork substantiates it.
• More reverse-bias complaints to survive early motions, shifting the fight to whether the employer’s stated reasons hold water and whether the plaintiff can show pretext.
• Finally, the concurrence signals that McDonnell Douglas itself could land on the Court’s chopping block, so employers should brace for further doctrinal changes that could further impact how employment litigation is handled by the courts.