On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited a higher standard for ‘reverse discrimination claims. The Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ____ (2025), ruling 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 Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which held that plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, could not support an allegation of reverse discrimination without evidence of “background circumstances.”
Plaintiff Ames, a former employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“Department”), filed a suit against the Department, alleging 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 indicated that Ames, a Program Administrator, met expectations or exceeded expectations in numerous categories. In 2019, Ames unsuccessfully applied for a new position as Department Bureau Chief. Instead, the Department decisionmakers, who were heterosexual, hired a gay woman for that position. Soon after, the Department demoted Ames to a previously-held position. The Department then hired a gay man to replace Ames as Program Administrator.
Ames sued the Department in federal court, alleging that the Department had discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation as a heterosexual woman. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, holding that because Ames was a member of a majority group, she was required to show “background circumstances” to support allegations that the Department engaged in “reverse discrimination” (that the Department discriminated against Ames because she was heterosexual).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court decision, denying Ames’ sexual orientation discrimination claim. The Court held that, without evidence that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision or evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group, Ames could not show the requisite “background circumstances” to support her reverse discrimination claim. In addition to finding that the Departmental decisionmakers who denied Ames’s promotion and demoted her were gay, the Court found no demonstrated “pattern” of reverse discrimination against heterosexuals at the Department.
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that majority group plaintiffs do not have to show “background circumstances” to establish discrimination, overruling the Sixth Circuit. The Supreme Court found that such a rule was 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 reverse discrimination than a minority group plaintiff.
Key Takeaways for Employers
The Supreme Court’s decision to overrule the Sixth Circuit and allow claims of reverse discrimination without showing “background circumstances” opens the doors to litigation by majority group members, including but not limited to heterosexual employees, alleging discrimination due to such majority group membership.
Even prior to the decision, more than half the federal courts of appeals, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court with appellate jurisdiction in California, did not apply the “background circumstances rule.”
Thus, employers in California do not face any change in the level of evidence employees would have to present to establish discrimination in the workplace.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore attorneys are closely monitoring developments in relation to this Special Bulletin and are able to advise on the impact this could have on your organization. If you have any questions about this issue, please contact our Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fresno, San Diego, or Sacramento office.