On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court held that federal anti-discrimination law applies to “majority groups”—i.e., white people, heterosexual people, Christians, Americans, etc.—just as they apply to “minority groups” such as black or Hispanic people, homosexual people, Muslims, or foreign nationals.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., the Supreme Court held that majority group plaintiffs—in this instance, a heterosexual woman—could not be held to a higher standard of proof in a Title VII discrimination case than a minority plaintiff is.
The Claim
Ms. Marlean Ames, a 20-year veteran of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleged that she was passed over for a promotion and subsequently demoted from her role because she was heterosexual. Ms. Ames alleged that the promotion was given to a lesbian woman. A few days later, she was demoted, and a gay man was given her role as program administrator. Ms. Ames alleged that these decisions were motivated by her sexual orientation.
The Lower Courts’ Decisions
The District Court and, later, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Ms. Ames’ argument. They held that Ms. Ames had failed to present a “prima facie” case of discrimination because she had not presented evidence of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 87 F. 4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023).
Under Supreme Court precedent, a Title VII plaintiff must first present a present a “prima facie” case that the defendant acted with a discriminatory motive. “Prima facie” is a Latin term meaning “at first sight” or “based on first impression.” Satisfying this first step in the process is usually not onerous.
But, for plaintiffs from a “majority group” who alleged discrimination, the Sixth Circuit and other courts have applied a different rule. They have required majority group plaintiffs to meet an additional requirement to establish a prima facie case. Specifically, majority group plaintiffs had to show evidence of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
The Supreme Court’s Holding
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning as inconsistent with the statutory text of Title VII and with decades of Supreme Court precedent.
The Court held that nothing in Title VII itself supported treating majority group individuals differently than anyone else. As Justice Jackson explained for the Court:
“As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise 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.’ (citation omitted). By establishing the same protections for ‘every individual,’… Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
The Court explained that its precedents have consistently, since the early 1970s, interpreted Title VII as applying equally to all groups, “minority or majority.” The “special circumstances” rule was in violation of those binding precedents.
What does this mean?
Most obviously, this decision means it will be easier for majority group plaintiffs to prove their discrimination claims.
The decision, combined with the current administration’s critical stance toward DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) hiring programs, could mean that we will see an increase in the number of “reverse discrimination” cases that are filed in the future. DEI programs and other hiring/recruiting practices with a stated (or unstated) preference for hiring minority groups, such as women, racial or ethnic minorities, or members of the LGBTQ community, are likely illegal and could give rise to liability under Title VII.
If you believe you have been the victim of “reverse discrimination,” give our office a call for a free, confidential consultation.
"*" indicates required fields
ADVERTISING ONLY: The information on this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Past results obtained by Biller & Kimble, LLC are no guarantee of future results. Each case or matter is different and must be judged on its own merits.