U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Reverse Discrimination Standard Under Title VII

Supreme Court Ruling on Reverse Discrimination

In a 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the standard used by the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. circuits, which held that majority group plaintiffs had to meet a heightened burden of proof to establish a claim of discrimination. In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed that regardless of affiliation, plaintiffs in Title VII litigation are subject to the same burden of proof to establish discrimination.

Background of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a heterosexual woman, Ames, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex after being denied a promotion and demoted. The lower courts ruled against Ames, requiring her to show “background circumstances” due to her being a member of a majority group (heterosexual). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Ames failed to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The court reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case.”

Implications for Employers Across the U.S.

Employers, particularly in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming and in the District of Columbia, may want to review their policies and practices to ensure that they are being applied equitably across all their employees, regardless of protected class membership. Retraining of supervisors may also be necessary to ensure that employment decisions and communications are based on qualifications rather than protected characteristics.

Is your organization prepared for the implications of this ruling?

Now is the time to ensure your EEO policies, supervisory training, and promotion practices reflect the Supreme Court’s clarified standard. Our team has deep expertise in federal employment law and compliance strategy—and we’re ready to help you navigate this shift with confidence. Reach out today to schedule a tailored compliance consultation and safeguard your workplace against risk.

FAQs

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services?
A: In a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court ruled that plaintiffs in Title VII discrimination cases—regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group—are subject to the same burden of proof. This overturned prior rulings that required majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened standard by showing “background circumstances.”

Q: What is “reverse discrimination” under Title VII?
A: Reverse discrimination refers to claims brought by individuals who belong to a majority group (e.g., white, male, heterosexual) alleging they were treated unfairly based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics. The Supreme Court clarified that Title VII protects all individuals equally, and no heightened burden applies based on group affiliation.

Q: How does this ruling affect employers?
A: Employers must ensure that their employment practices are applied equitably across all employees, regardless of protected class membership. This includes reviewing promotion criteria, disciplinary procedures, and supervisory training to avoid any appearance of bias or unequal treatment.

Q: Which states are most directly impacted by this decision?
A: The ruling directly affects jurisdictions under the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, including Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.

Q: What should employers do now?
A: Employers should:

• Review and update EEO policies
• Retrain supervisors on nondiscriminatory decision-making
• Audit promotion and disciplinary procedures
• Ensure documentation supports fair and lawful employment actions

Our team can help you assess your current practices and implement changes that align with federal standards. Contact us today for a tailored compliance consultation.