The United States Supreme Court’s most recent decision in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, 605 U.S. __ (2025), will make it easier for plaintiffs to claim “reverse discrimination” in the workplace. In a 9-0 Supreme Court decision, the Court resolved a split among the circuit courts and opined that a majority plaintiff in a Title VII case need not meet a heightened prima facie standard and show “background circumstances” to support that an employer is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.
By way of background, Ames, a heterosexual white woman, and a long-time employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (the “agency”), alleged that the agency discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. Specifically, Ames alleged that she was denied promotion to management in favor of a lesbian candidate, and was later demoted from her role as program administrator and replaced by a gay man. Ames also claimed that she was more qualified than both chosen candidates.
Lower Courts
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the agency, and the 6th Circuit affirmed. The lower courts analyzed the Plaintiff’s claims under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) framework, which evaluates “disparate treatment claims that rest on circumstantial evidence.” In the first step of the framework, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that there was a discriminatory motive by the defendant. When that plaintiff is from a “majority” group, such as here, the burden is higher, and the plaintiff must show more evidence than a plaintiff from a “minority” group in order to make out a prima facie claim of discrimination. Additional evidence included a showing of “background circumstances” indicating “that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” In ruling in this manner, the 6th Circuit took the same position as the 7th, 8th and 10th Circuit, and the DC Circuit, which stood in opposition to the view held by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 11th Circuits, that a reverse discrimination plaintiff only needed to show what is required of a plaintiff from a traditionally disadvantaged minority-group and did not need to establish background circumstances. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve this split.
Supreme Court Ruling
Upon review, the United States Supreme Court held that this higher standard was not consistent with the text of Title VII or precedent case law, as the text of Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision does not distinguish between majority- and minority-group plaintiffs. Instead, Title VII puts the focus on individuals opposed to groups, and bars discrimination against any individual based on a protected characteristic. Precisely, under this provision it is “unlawful ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’” Therefore, the Court found there was no basis for imposing additional requirements on majority-group plaintiffs, and that the “background circumstances” rule flouts the basic principle of Title VII, which is to protect individuals of each sex equally from discrimination. Further, precedent directs courts to avoid inflexible applications of the first prong of the McDonnell Douglas framework, as the exact requirements to establish a prima facie case are fact sensitive and were never meant to be “‘rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic.’” The “background circumstances” requirement had created a uniform and highly specific standard in each case that is contrary to case law.
Takeaways
As a consequence of this ruling, a plaintiff who is a member of the majority-group will be subject to the same evidentiary standard as a minority-group plaintiff under the first prong of the McDonnell Douglas framework in establishing a prima facie case. Thus, the “background circumstances” requirement will no longer be imposed when a plaintiff is from a “majority” group.
Notably, this decision was not decided based on constitutional grounds, instead it was made based on Title VII and the interpretation of that statute specifically. Challenges will undoubtedly continue, including on constitutional grounds in states like New Jersey, which in interpreting its New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, has adopted the background circumstances test.
Additionally, this ruling is likely to have an impact on majority plaintiffs bringing reverse discrimination challenges to DEI programs, policies, and initiatives in this current political climate, when such programs are already under attack. The Supreme Court has made clear that such reverse discrimination plaintiffs will no longer have a higher burden to meet. As a result, there is the potential for an increase in reverse discrimination claims challenging DEI programs. Employers and organizations should review such initiatives closely to ensure that they are legally compliant.
This summary is for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. This information should not be reused without permission.