In reversing the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court emphasized most significantly that the background circumstances requirement was inconsistent with the plain text of Title VII and Supreme Court precedent.

On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held, in a decision penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, that “majority group” plaintiffs are not required to meet a “heightened” evidentiary standard (the “background circumstances” test) in order to prevail on a Title VII claim. To the contrary, the Court ruled that claims by majority group plaintiffs must be subject to the same standard as claims by minority group plaintiffs.

In Ames, the plaintiff had alleged that she was discriminated against because of her heterosexual sexual orientation. The Sixth Circuit granted summary judgment for the employer because Ames had failed to meet the background circumstances test. “Background circumstances” is a heightened evidentiary burden imposed by the Sixth Circuit on majority group plaintiffs to overcome the judicial assumption that it would be the “unusual employer” to “discriminate against the majority.”

This additional burden was required not only by the Sixth Circuit but also by the Seventh, Eighth, 10th and District of Columbia Circuits. In contrast, the Third and 11th Circuits rejected the additional requirement, with the other circuits not applying it but also not ruling on it one way or the other.

In reversing the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court emphasized most significantly that the background circumstances requirement was inconsistent with the plain text of Title VII and Supreme Court precedent.

In terms of the plain text, the Supreme Court stated:

As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs… . Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority group plaintiff’s alone.

In terms of its precedent, the Supreme Court stated:

In Griggs v Duke Power Co., 401 US.424 (1971), for instance, we said that “[d]iscriminatory preferences for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed” in Title VII.

Impact of the Supreme Court Decision

As a result of the Court’s decision, there is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”; there is just discrimination. But the likely impact of the decision will be to accelerate what previously were referred to as reverse discrimination claims—that is, claims by individuals who are white and/or male and/or straight.

More specifically, Ames removes an obstacle to bringing majority group discrimination claims in the five circuits that previously have imposed a heightened burden on majority group plaintiffs. In all jurisdictions, Ames will shine light on the right of majority group employees to bring discrimination claims. When individuals become aware of their rights, they are more likely to exercise them.

What Employers Need to Do Next

There are a number of steps employers should consider taking in response to Ames.

First, Ames is but another reason for employers to evaluate their “DEI” programs to ensure they do not contain preferences for minority groups or exclusions of majority groups. Such unlawful preferences or exclusions are more likely to be challenged by majority group employees who have or will have greater awareness of their rights.

Second, employers should review their management training programs on discrimination, harassment, implicit bias, etc., to make sure they are evenhanded. For example, in discrimination training, make clear that sex discrimination protects women and men equally; the same analysis applies to race, national origin and other Title VII factors. In the context of harassment training, be thoughtful about the examples you provide. Not all the “villains” should be majority group members with the “victims” being minority group members.

Third, employers should consider how they evaluate legal risk. More specifically, do not ignore the risk of claims by majority group employees when it comes to adverse employment decisions affecting them. For example, providing less due process to  white males under the erroneous assumption that they are not in a protected group may result in the differential treatment that supports a disparate treatment claim. The same analysis applies to pay audits and reductions in force.

In essence, the Supreme Court has made clear again that discrimination is discrimination if a protected characteristic is considered. And, under Title VII, everyone falls within a protected group. The goal of increasing diversity is not a valid defense to discrimination, nor is customer or client preference. These points, too, should be raised in your training of managers.

For More Information

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Jonathan A. Segal, any of the attorneys in our Employment, Labor, Benefits and Immigration Practice Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.