Title VII, Clarified: How the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Ames Affects Reverse Discrimination Claims

In employment discrimination law, not all claims have started on equal ground. For years, employees who did not fall into traditional protected classes often faced a steeper burden of proof.

That legal distinction was at the heart of recent Supreme Court case Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, and this landmark ruling changes how courts address “reverse discrimination” employment cases.

In particular, the Court removed the “background circumstances” requirement, which dismantles a long-standing barrier for certain employment discrimination claims.

Case Background: Ames' Claim

The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a longtime employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services. A heterosexual woman, Ames had held various roles since 2004 and became a program administrator in 2019. She applied for a new management position but was not selected; the role went to a lesbian candidate instead. Shortly after, Ames was demoted from her position, which was then filled by a gay man.

Ames filed suit, alleging she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation.

Lower courts rejected her claim under the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which imposed an added evidentiary burden on plaintiffs outside historically disadvantaged groups. Under that precedent, employees considered part of a majority group, such as white, male, or heterosexual workers, were required to demonstrate specific background circumstances suggesting their employer was inclined to discriminate against members of that majority group. Historically disadvantaged minority-group members were not required to meet that evidentiary burden.

Ames appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review whether that additional requirement was consistent with Title VII.

With this ruling, all employees alleging disparate treatment under Title VII must now meet the same threshold to proceed, with no additional requirements based on group membership.

A Uniform Standard for Discrimination Claims

In a unanimous 9-0 decision on June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled the added background circumstances requirement was inconsistent with Title VII, the federal law banning intentional discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin. The Court found Title VII made no distinction between majority- and minority-group employees, and the disparate-treatment provision applied equally to all individuals.

With this ruling, all employees alleging disparate treatment under Title VII must now meet the same threshold to proceed, with no additional requirements based on group membership.¹

Implications for Employers After Ames

While this decision does not alter the standard for proving discrimination, it eliminates a procedural barrier that previously limited certain claims from moving forward. As a result, employers should be prepared for an increase in reverse discrimination claims from a broader range of employees, including those in majority groups. Any adverse employment action can result in a claim in which the employer will have to justify the action on merit or on otherwise non-discriminatory grounds.

This reinforces the importance of maintaining clear, consistent, and well-documented employment practices. Employers should review job descriptions, promotion and hiring processes, and disciplinary procedures to ensure they are based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors, and that their documentation reflects those standards.

If your organization has not reviewed its employment practices lately, now is the time to start. Employment laws continue to evolve, and recent court decisions like Ames highlight the importance of staying current. Whether you’re updating your handbook or addressing a workplace concern, Danna McKitrick’s employment law team can help ensure your practices are legally sound and up to date.

Written by attorney Michael McKitrick. Research by law clerk Callie Kinser.

[1] The Supreme Court did not decide whether Marlean Ames was discriminated against. It focused solely on the legal standard she should be held to. The Court vacated the lower ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. Read the full Supreme Court decision here.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.