The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously prohibited the use of a higher standard for reverse discrimination claims. The Court ruled that members of a majority group are not required to show “background circumstances” to support allegations of reverse discrimination. The ruling rejects the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which held that plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, needed evidence of “background circumstances” to support her reverse discrimination allegations. Ninth Circuit precedent was already aligned with this U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Ames, was a former employee for the Department of Youth Services (Department). Her lawsuit alleged that the Department discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In a 2018 performance evaluation, Ames’s supervisor rated Ames as meeting or exceeding expectations in numerous categories as a Program Administrator. In 2019, Ames unsuccessfully applied for a new position as Bureau Chief. Instead, the Department decisionmakers hired a gay woman. Soon after, the Department demoted Ames to her previously-held secretary position, at a much lower pay rate. The Department then hired a gay man to replace Ames as Program Administrator.
Ames alleged that the Department had discriminated against her based on her heterosexual orientation. The District Court granted the Department’s summary judgment motion, holding that because Ames was a member of a majority group, she was required to show “background circumstances” to support her reverse discrimination allegations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion vacated the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case. The opinion holds that majority group plaintiffs do not have to show “background circumstances” to establish TVII discrimination. Such a rule is contrary to the text of Title VII and longstanding Supreme Court precedent. In addition, the decision makes clear that majority group plaintiffs do not have a higher burden to show discrimination than a minority group plaintiff.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 145 S.Ct .1540 (2025).