In a unanimous decision that could reshape how workplace discrimination claims are adjudicated, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in favor of an Ohio woman who alleged she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is heterosexual. The landmark ruling effectively lowers the bar for individuals considered part of “majority groups” to pursue what have often been termed “reverse discrimination” lawsuits under federal civil rights law.
The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, centered on Marlean Ames, a long-time employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed that she was denied a management promotion, which was instead given to a lesbian woman, and was subsequently demoted from her program administrator role, which was then filled by a gay man. She sued, arguing that her employer discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Lower courts, including the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, had ruled against Ames. These courts applied a heightened standard for plaintiffs who are members of “majority groups” (often defined as white, heterosexual, and/or male), requiring them to demonstrate “background circumstances” indicating that their employer was “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Ames, they argued, had not met this additional evidentiary burden.
However, in an opinion authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected this heightened standard. “By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson wrote for the Court.
The unanimous decision means that Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin, applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their majority or minority status. This ruling will have significant implications for lawsuits in at least 20 states and the District of Columbia, where appeals courts had previously imposed this additional hurdle for majority-group plaintiffs.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a concurring opinion that highlighted the broader context, noting that some of the country’s “largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups,” citing the prevalence of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives. While Jackson’s opinion did not explicitly address DEI, the ruling is seen by many as a significant win for conservative legal groups and those who argue against certain affirmative action or DEI policies.
For Marlean Ames, the ruling means her lawsuit will now return to the lower courts, where it will be judged under the same standard applied to all other Title VII claims. Her case will now focus on whether she can present sufficient evidence to create an inference of unlawful discrimination, without the additional burden of proving “background circumstances.”
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores a fundamental principle of anti-discrimination law: that federal statutes protect individuals from discrimination, rather than conferring special protections based on group identity. It is a ruling that, while seemingly narrow in its legal scope, carries broad implications for the landscape of workplace discrimination claims across the United States.