On June 5, 2025, in an opinion authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services significantly lowered the evidentiary burden for so-called “reverse discrimination” cases by holding that majority-group plaintiffs are not required to prove “background circumstances” showing their employer is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.
Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed that she was discriminated against by her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, when she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman, and thereafter demoted and replaced with a gay man. Her case was originally dismissed in favor of her employer by the District Court, which found that Ames did not show “background circumstances” that the Ohio Department of Youth Services acted with a discriminatory motive. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision.
In the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ames argued that the Sixth Circuit’s requirement that a plaintiff employee in a majority group must show “background circumstances” is inconsistent with the plain reading of Title VII. The background circumstances test requires majority plaintiffs to set forth evidence that supports the suspicion that the defendant is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. The Sixth Circuit is one of five Circuits to require background circumstances. The Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as the remainder of the Circuits, do not require background circumstances when analyzing majority-group Title VII claims.
In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the Circuit split and found that Title VII’s text does not contain an additional requirement for plaintiffs in a majority group to prove discrimination. The Court held that the case must be remanded to the District Court in the Sixth Circuit for application of the proper prima facie standard, which does not include the “background circumstances” requirement.
As a result of the Ames decision, anyone nationwide who can meet the prima facie elements of a discrimination claim can proceed with their claim regardless of whether they are in a majority or minority group and without the need to provide evidence of background circumstances. This means that, as long as the plaintiff can set forth facts to establish a discriminatory motive of the employer, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate non-discriminatory basis for the adverse employment action. The plaintiff no longer must also show that as part of the discriminatory motive, the employer is unusual in that it discriminates against majority groups.
Consequently, there will likely be more Title VII claims filed for “reverse discrimination,” or discrimination against individuals in majority groups. As such, employers should ensure that their employment practices are consistent with Title VII and that factors such as race, color, religion, sex, and national origin are not considered.
If you have questions or concerns about this decision and how it applies to your employment practices, please contact attorney Sarah Doyle or any member of Barley Snyder’s Employment Practice Group.
