United States Supreme Court rejects heightened standard for reverse discrimination claims under Title VII

At a glance

• The US Supreme Court unanimously vacated a lower court decision, rejecting the use of a heightened evidentiary standard for 'majority-group' plaintiffs in Title VII discrimination cases.
• The Court held that Title VII protects 'any individual' from discrimination, and all plaintiffs - regardless of group status - must meet the same prima facie standard under the McDonnell Douglas framework.
• The Court invalidated the requirement that majority-group plaintiffs show 'background circumstances' to prove discrimination, stating it conflicts with Title VII’s text and precedent.
• The decision may lead to more reverse discrimination claims and requires employers to justify employment decisions with clear, non-discriminatory reasons for all employees.
• Employers are advised to review anti-discrimination policies, training, and legal strategies to ensure compliance with the equal application of Title VII protections.

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, vacating and remanding a Sixth Circuit ruling against a heterosexual woman in a Title VII 'reverse discrimination' case. The Court rejected the use of a heightened evidentiary standard for 'majority-group' plaintiffs – such as white, male, or heterosexual employees.

The Court held that the so-called 'background circumstances' rule – which required majority-group plaintiffs to satisfy a higher evidentiary burden to prevail on a Title VII claim and provide additional evidence that the employer is the 'unusual' one that discriminates against the majority – conflicts with the text of Title VII and established Supreme Court precedent. The decision, together with other developments under the Trump Administration, could increase the risk of reverse discrimination claims.

Background

The case involved Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who had been employed in various roles by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. Ames asserted a Title VII discrimination suit against the agency on the basis of sexual orientation after she was denied a promotion for a management position in favor of a lesbian woman and subsequently demoted from her position as a program administrator, with her position filled by a gay man.

The District Court granted summary judgment in the agency’s favor, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The District Court held that Ames failed to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973) because she had not provided evidence of 'background circumstances' indicating that the employer was an 'unusual' or 'rare entity that discriminates against the majority. Under the first prong of the McDonnell Douglas framework, minority-group plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that the defendant acted with a discriminatory motive – a burden that the Supreme Court characterized as 'not onerous.' However, over time, several courts (and other circuits) developed a rule requiring majority-group plaintiffs to produce additional 'background circumstances' evidence.

The Supreme Court’s ruling

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Sixth Circuit’s heightened approach, emphasizing that Title VII protects 'any individual' from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, regardless of group membership. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” The Court cited prior decisions such as Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) and McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976), both of which examine Congress’s intent to provide the same protection for every individual under Title VII. According to the Court, these cases reinforce that “the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority-group” and that Title VII’s protections were intended to apply equally to all individuals, regardless of group status. Accordingly, the Court held that all Title VII plaintiffs – regardless of demographic status – are subject to the same prima facie standard when alleging unlawful discrimination.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote a concurring opinion highlighting broader concerns about judge-made legal doctrines such as the 'background circumstances' rule. Significantly, Justice Thomas questioned the suitability of the McDonnell Douglas framework in its entirety, stating that it is “incompatible with the summary-judgment standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.”

Potential implications for employers

The anticipated decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services has significant implications for employers.

First, by eliminating the additional evidentiary burden placed on majority-group plaintiffs, the Court’s ruling may lead to an increase in Title VII claims by employees who believe they have experienced reverse discrimination based on characteristics such as being white, male, or heterosexual. It also raises the potential that majority-group plaintiffs will be able to survive the prima facie stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Second, as discussed in our prior alert, President Donald Trump’s Executive Orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives – including disparate impact theory and related agency memoranda – have prompted many companies to assess their policies, practices, and programs. Federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice, have also encouraged majority-group plaintiffs who believe they have experienced discrimination related to DEI to contact the EEOC.

Accordingly, employers are encouraged to ensure they are prepared to substantiate any adverse employment actions with clear, legitimate, and non-discriminatory justifications – regardless of the employee’s protected status. Employers are also encouraged to consult with counsel to assess any ongoing or anticipated litigation, reductions-in-force, and other adverse personnel actions in light of this decision, as well as ongoing developments under the Trump Administration.

Employers may consider reviewing their anti-discrimination policies, training materials, and internal complaint procedures to ensure they reflect the equal application of Title VII protections to all employees, regardless of their demographic group. Importantly, when defending Title VII claims, employers may no longer rely on arguments that majority-group plaintiffs must meet a higher evidentiary threshold at the prima facie stage. All claims must be assessed under the same legal standard.

For more information about equal employment opportunity issues, please contact the authors or your DLA Piper relationship attorney. In addition, please ask about our toolkit, 'Assessing risk under President Trump’s DEI Executive Order: A strategic roadmap for private employers and federal contractors'.