On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, clarifying that courts may not apply different legal standards depending on the identity of the employee bringing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination cannot be held to a heightened evidentiary standard if they belong to a majority group.

The Case and Its Holding

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged that she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay colleague because of her sexual orientation. The lower court applied a heightened standard used by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in so-called "reverse discrimination" cases—requiring Ames to show that her employer was unusual in that it discriminates against majority-group members. (The Sixth Circuit and four others across the country including the Eighth and Tenth Circuits which include Missouri and Kansas applied this type of standard while other federal courts did not.)

The Supreme Court rejected the heightened standard approach. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the Court's opinion, holding that Title VII provides equal protection to all individuals, regardless of their membership in a majority or minority group. The Court ruled that courts may not impose additional hurdles for majority-group plaintiffs, as doing so undermines the statute’s individual-rights focus. “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Justice Jackson wrote.

Legal and Practical Implications

The decision eliminates the so-called “background circumstances” requirement applied in several circuits and creates a uniform national standard: all employees, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, may assert Title VII claims under the same evidentiary burden.

Although Ames did not directly involve a corporate DEI policy, a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas highlighted legal scrutiny of DEI and affirmative action efforts in the workplace, warning that these initiatives—if improperly designed or implemented—could cross into prohibited discriminatory practices.

This decision follows last year’s Muldrow v. City of St. Louis ruling, which lowered the threshold of harm required to bring a Title VII discrimination claim. Together, these rulings make it significantly easier for employees—majority or minority—to file employment discrimination lawsuits.

What Employers Should Do Now

While the Court reaffirmed that Title VII is neutral on its face, its recent decisions may raise the risk of litigation involving perceived preferential treatment in employment decisions, including those tied to DEI goals. Employers should regularly assess any policies, programs and practices to ensure they are appropriately tailored and avoid preferential treatment based on protected class characteristics.

If your business has questions about what this reverse discrimination ruling means and how to navigate assessment of your policies and practices, or your business has received an employment discrimination complaint, Martin Pringle's employment attorneys are available to help.