US Supreme Court Clarifies Standard In Reverse-Discrimination Cases

• Published date: 11 June 2025
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Employee Rights/ Labour Relations, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Mayer Brown
• Author: Gabrielle Levin, Freesia Ferrantino and Crystal Paulino

Decision Alert: Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Svcs.

Introduction:

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that so-called "reverse discrimination" claims'discrimination claims brought by a member of the majority race, gender, or other protected characteristic'are not subject to heightened standards of proof. As reverse-discrimination claims continue to become more common, the decision clarifies the legal standards that will apply to those claims and serves as an important reminder for employers of the considerations to take into account when making employment decisions.

Issue:

Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show additional "background circumstances" to bolster the claim that the defendant discriminates against the majority.

Background:

Petitioner MarleanAmes is a heterosexual woman who was hired by the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004. In 2019, Ames was assigned a new supervisor, a homosexual woman. Ames received positive performance reviews, but when she applied for a promotion to the Department's Bureau Chief of Quality, a homosexual woman was hired instead of Ames. Just four days later, Ames was demoted to a secretarial role and a gay man was hired to fill Ames's prior role.

Ames sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting claims of discrimination based on her sex and sexual orientation. The United States District Court for the District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that because Ames is heterosexual in addition to the prima facie case that all discrimination plaintiffs must establish'Ames must make an additional showing of "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminated against the majority." The Sixth Circuit noted that Ames's prima facie case was easy to make, but that her claim for sexual-orientation discrimination should nevertheless be dismissed because she failed to satisfy the so-called "background circumstances" requirement by pointing to evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group. In Ames's case, she was terminated by the Director and Assistant Director'who were both heterosexuals'and there was no evidence of a pattern of discrimination besides her own experience.

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, four circuits had adopted the "background circumstances" requirement in...