On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that courts may not impose a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

As we previously covered, the plaintiff, a heterosexual woman, alleged that her supervisor, a gay woman, discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation by denying her a promotion and subsequently demoting her.  Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that to state a Title VII claim, majority-group plaintiffs like Ames had to make an additional, preliminary showing of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”  In addition to the Sixth Circuit, four others had held or suggested that majority-group plaintiffs must satisfy a heightened burden.

The Supreme Court reversed unanimously.  The Court noted that the text of Title VII prohibits employment discrimination against “any individual” on the basis of a protected characteristic, without distinguishing members of historically disadvantaged groups from those in majority groups. Requiring majority-group plaintiffs to show “background circumstances,” the Court determined, imposes an impermissible, group-based threshold that lacks foundation in the statute or Supreme Court precedent.

The circuit split now resolved, “reverse-discrimination” plaintiffs nationwide can no longer be subject to heightened evidentiary standards in Title VII claims.  The Court’s decision is also largely consistent with recent guidance documents issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice regarding Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs in the workplace.