Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Landmark “Reverse Discrimination” Case
The United States Supreme Court issued a major ruling last month that has the potential to increase employment discrimination claims and litigation in workplaces across the country. While this watershed ruling in one sense ensures a level playing field for all plaintiffs in discrimination claims, it upends long-standing precedent in federal courts when evaluating claims brought by people not traditionally thought of as subject to discrimination at work.
Read on for a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, and contact Richard Koss, Attorney at Law, if you are a Bay Area employer or employee in need of quality advice and representation from a skilled and experienced San Francisco employment discrimination lawyer.
Background: Who Is Marlean Ames and What Happened?
Marlean Ames is a heterosexual woman who worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services. In 2019, after being passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian colleague and demoted only to find a gay man placed in her previous position, she filed a Title VII discrimination claim based on sexual orientation.
Both the federal District Court and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for the Department, applying the so‑called “background circumstances” rule. That rule required majority-group plaintiffs to present extra evidence, like statistics or evidence that decision-makers belonged to a protected class, to infer discrimination. Ames then took her case to the highest court in the land, where she received a more favorable audience.
Supreme Court’s Decision (June 5, 2025)
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court rejected the long-established “background circumstances” rule. In departing from precedents adopted in several circuit courts, the Court held that Title VII’s plain text protects “any individual” from discrimination, creating no special burden based on majority or minority group status.
Justice Jackson emphasized that Congress intentionally chose individual-based language, leaving “no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” In support of her position, Jackson went back several decades, even ten years before courts started articulating the background circumstances rule, citing the 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case and McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail (1976), where the court noted that Title VII prohibits discrimination against whites just as it does against non-whites.
What This Ruling Means: Equal Application of Title VII
After Ames, Courts may no longer recognize an elevated threshold for majority-group plaintiffs. A straight, white, or male employee alleging discrimination now follows the same prima facie burden established under the High Court’s 1973 ruling in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green for disparate treatment claims that rest on circumstantial evidence. First, the plaintiff must present a prima facie case that shows the defendant acted with a discriminatory motive. The burden then shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s offered reason was only a pretext for discrimination.
This analysis will now apply regardless of whether the plaintiff belongs to a traditionally persecuted group or the majority (white/black, male/female, gay/straight, etc.) Courts can no longer layer on extra requirements based on the plaintiff’s demographic majority status.
Legal & Workplace Implications
The ruling in Ames establishes a uniform framework for employment discrimination cases. Title VII claims will be adjudicated under the same rules, regardless of whether the plaintiff is from a protected or majority group. This decision will likely provide a boost for reverse-discrimination claims, encouraging more lawsuits filed by majority-group individuals—such as white, straight, or male employees—challenging workplace decisions, including DEI programs.
For employers, in-house counsel and HR might want to reassess anti-discrimination training and policies to ensure compliance with the principle that Title VII imposes no special barriers for majority-group plaintiffs.
How Ames Fits in With Other Title VII Rulings
-
McDonnell Douglas v. Green (1973): Created the prima facie burden-shifting model without discrimination based on group membership.
-
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail (1976): Confirmed that Title VII prohibits discrimination against whites equally. Ames builds directly on this equal protection principle.
-
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024): Another unanimous High Court decision that lowered barriers for plaintiffs, ruling that an employee challenging a discirminator job transfer under Title VII need only show the transfer caused “some harm,” overturning lower courts that had required “significant” or “material” harm. Ames follows that trend toward expanding the scope of successful Title VII claims.
Contact Attorney Richard Koss for Help With Employment Discrimination Claims in the San Francisco Bay Area
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services sends a strong message: Title VII protects all individuals equally—no matter their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or whether they belong to a majority or minority. The elimination of the “background circumstances” requirement unifies disparate-treatment claims under a clear, nondiscriminatory legal framework, leveling the evidentiary playing field for everyone.
If you are a Bay Area employer or employee with questions about how this ruling might affect workplace policies, diversity programs, or a potential discrimination claim, contact California employment law attorney Richard Koss, serving employers and employees throughout the San Francisco Peninsula and East Bay.
