Supreme Court Rejects Different Rules for Title VII Reverse Discrimination Claims
Jul 24, 2025 | Written by: | Share
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, barring courts from using different criteria for Title VII discrimination plaintiffs who are perceived to be part of a “majority” group—such as heterosexuals, men, or white individuals. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made clear that nothing in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act allows courts to treat plaintiffs differently based on their demographics.
Kathryn Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged she was demoted and passed over for promotion in favor of homosexual colleagues. Relying on Bostock v. Clayton County, she argued that if discrimination based on homosexuality is unlawful, then discrimination against heterosexuals must be too.
But the district court, and later the Sixth Circuit, dismissed her case, holding that she failed to satisfy something called the “background circumstances” test. This test, used in a handful of courts, requires plaintiffs from majority groups to provide extra evidence explaining why an employer might discriminate against them—an added burden that plaintiffs from minority groups don’t face.
The test is not part of the federal anti-discrimination law known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, something the Supreme Court made clear in its decision. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made it simple: the law doesn’t allow courts to treat people differently based on their identity when deciding whether they’ve been discriminated against at work. The Court had recently said something similar in another case (Muldrow v. City of St. Louis), warning lower courts not to make up extra rules that don’t appear in the text of Title VII.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, agreed with the result and went even further. He not only criticized the “background circumstances” test, but also questioned the entire framework courts use to analyze these cases. He argued that courts should stop relying on complex, judge-made rules that aren’t found anywhere in the actual law. He also pointed out that assumptions about who is in the “majority” are outdated. For example, white employees may not be the majority in every workplace, and some modern workplace diversity programs may even encourage employers to consider race or sex in hiring or promotion decisions.
While Ames is a clear win for legal equality, it doesn’t close the book on courts treating people differently based on identity. As one amicus brief pointed out, judges sometimes factor in race or gender when deciding things like who can lead a class action, whether to hold a hearing, or how to apply Fourth Amendment rules. The Supreme Court didn’t take up those issues here—but it might in the future.
The takeaway from Ames is that the Court made clear that federal employment law protects everyone. It doesn’t matter whether you’re part of a majority or minority group. If you’ve been discriminated against at work based on sex, race, or another protected trait, the law applies equally—and courts can’t make you jump through extra hoops just because of who you are.
If you are an employer facing a discrimination suit, or an employee who believes you’ve experienced discrimination in the workplace based on sex, race, or another protected characteristic, we encourage you to contact one of our employment law attorneys to discuss your legal options.
Sharon M. Flynn, Esq., is a partner with Gebhardt & Kiefer, P.C., and practices primarily in the areas of general litigation, employment law, and insurance defense.
If you have a suggestion for a future blog topic, please feel free to submit it via the Contact Us form.
Any statements made herein are solely for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.