In June 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that courts cannot require an employee in a "reverse-discrimination" lawsuit to meet a higher evidentiary standard than is required of a minority plaintiff.  A reverse discrimination lawsuit is an action brought by a member of a majority group.  Ames confirms the Court's long-standing position that antidiscrimination law protects all individuals on equal terms, regardless of whether they belong to majority or minority groups.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender, as well as other defined protected classes.  Since 1973, the Supreme Court case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green has set the legal criteria for plaintiffs to establish a "prima facie case" of discrimination.  The basic elements include:

1. they had a protected trait;
2. they suffered an adverse employment action;
3. they were otherwise qualified for the position; and
4. someone without the protected trait received more favorable treatment.

These criteria, if met, provide the inference of a claim for discrimination.  They provide the rebuttable presumption of discrimination because, if unexplained, they likely mean there was discrimination.  If these criteria are met, then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a nondiscriminatory reason for taking an adverse employment action.  Prior to Ames, many courts had determined that the four-criterion test did not apply to majority-group plaintiffs.  Majority group plaintiffs were subject to a higher standard - additional “background circumstances” - to assert a rebuttable inference of discrimination.

In Ames, the plaintiff was a heterosexual, white, female administrator who applied for a supervisory position.  An alternate candidate, with a confirmed sexual orientation as lesbian, was selected for the position.  The plaintiff not only failed to secure the desired position but was later demoted.  A male, with confirmed sexual orientation as gay, was hired to fill her original position.  Ames filed suit asserting sexual-orientation discrimination.  The lower courts granted and affirmed summary judgment on the grounds that Ames did not provide the requisite “background circumstances” necessary to sustain her burden as a member of a majority group.

The Supreme Court rejected the "background circumstances" application holding that Title VII does not distinguish between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs.  The Court stated Title VII provides "the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group."  The Supreme Court further stated, "This Court has repeatedly explained that the precise requirements of a prima facie case can vary depending on the context and were never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic."  The Court held that the lower courts had erred in holding Ames to a higher standard.

Ames creates a uniform standard, removing the varied approaches taken by different courts under McDonald-Douglass.  Employers must renew their focus on merit-based talent acquisition.  Ames may encourage an increase in reverse discrimination lawsuits, as the threshold for bringing claims is now easier.  Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives may encounter greater legal scrutiny.  Policies must focus on and document equal opportunity rather than specific demographic outcomes.  Employees may attempt to use DEI policies as evidence of discrimination.  Employers must ensure all hiring, promotion, and termination decisions are based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria, documented at the time of the decision.  Employers must implement updated training to ensure all claims are treated with the same standards, regardless of the employee's protected class.

Our Employment Group remains available to answer questions, review policies and provide training to prepare employers in the event of a reverse discrimination claim.  Please contact James F. Devine, Esq. at jfdevine@c-wlaw.com or (717) 390-3020. 

Disclaimer

The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction.  By reading this article, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and Cipriani & Werner, P.C. or any of our attorneys.  No information contained in this article should be construed as legal advice from Cipriani & Werner, P.C. or the individual authors.