SCOTUS Strikes Down Heightened Title VII Standard for Reverse Discrimination Claims

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) clarified the appropriate evidentiary standard for so-called “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)—that is, claims in which the plaintiff is a member of a perceived majority group. 

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Court unanimously, in nine succinct pages, decided that “majority-group plaintiffs [cannot be] subject[ed] to a different evidentiary burden than minority group plaintiffs” when bringing claims under Title VII. 605 U.S. __ (2025). The Court held that the Sixth Circuit had improperly applied a heightened evidentiary standard to the heterosexual female plaintiff’s claim of sexual orientation discrimination.  Although “reverse discrimination” claims are rare, the Ames decision lessens the burden of plaintiffs alleging such discriminatory conduct.   

Plaintiff Marlean Ames was hired by defendant Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) as an executive secretary in 2004. She was subsequently promoted to a program administrator position. In 2019, Ames applied for a management position with ODYS. She was interviewed for that position, but ODYS ultimately selected another candidate, who was a lesbian female. Days after Ames interviewed for the management position, ODYS demoted her back to her original executive secretary position. ODYS then placed a gay male in Ames’ former program administrator position. Subsequently, Ames brought a lawsuit claiming that ODYS wrongfully discriminated against her on the basis of her sexual orientation as a heterosexual female. Ames asserted that ODYS’s decisions not to promote her to the management position and to demote her to the executive secretary position were discriminatory adverse employment actions.

Title VII prohibits any employer from “discriminat[ing] against[] any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” In recent case law, the Court held that Title VII also encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The district court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to Ames’ Title VII claims. Under that framework, a plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. “If a plaintiff is able to demonstrate a prima facie case of employment discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a ‘legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason’ for its actions.” Ames v. Dep’t of Youth Servs., No. 2:20-cv-05935, 2023 WL 2539214 at *7 (S.D. Ohio 2023) (internal citations omitted). “[I]f the employer is able to satisfy its burden, “the burden of production shifts back to [the plaintiff] to demonstrate that [the employer’s] proffered reason was a mere pretext for discrimination.” Id.

When determining whether Ames satisfied her prima-facie case, the district court first required her to satisfy the traditional four-pronged test by showing: (1) “she was a member of a protected class;” (2) “she suffered an adverse employment action;” (3) “she was qualified for the position;” and (4) “she was replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated differently than similarly-situated, non-protected employees.” Id. at *7. However, the court also required Ames to meet “an additional ‘burden of demonstrating that [s]he was intentionally discriminated against ‘despite [her] majority status.’” Id. (internal citations omitted). In other words, the court applied a heightened standard to Ames because she was a heterosexual—a majority class—alleging sexual orientation discrimination. The court referred to this as a “modified McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework” and noted that Ames could meet the additional burden by showing “statistical analysis of the employer’s unlawful consideration of protected characteristics in past employment decisions, the fact that a minority employer replaced the plaintiff with another employee of the same minority group, [or] evidence of ‘organizational preference’ for hiring members of a minority group.” Id. at *8 (internal citations omitted). The court found that Ames failed to meet the heightened standard and granted summary judgment in ODYS’ favor. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 87 F.4th 822 (6th Cir. 2023)

SCOTUS reversed that decision, finding the heightened standard applied by the district court and the Sixth Circuit contradicts the “text of Title VII” and “longstanding precedents.” The Court held that Title VII provides “the same protections for every ‘individual’” regardless of whether they are a member of the “minority or majority.” The Court found that applying a heightened standard to majority plaintiffs “flouts that basic principle.”

In striking down the heightened evidentiary standard, SCOTUS resolved a circuit split. In addition to the Sixth Circuit, heightened standards for majority Title VII plaintiffs had been applied in the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits. Notably, the Eighth Circuit applied a heightened standard in Hammer v. Ashcroft, which was a “reverse race discrimination” case brought by a white plaintiff. 383 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2004), In the wake of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, all circuits are prohibited from applying heightened evidentiary standards for majority Title VII plaintiffs.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred with the majority, noting that the heightened standard was a “[j]udge-made doctrine[]” that “distort[ed] the underlying statutory text.” However, Justice Thomas took the position that the McDonnell Douglas framework as a whole “lacks any basis in the text of Title VII.” Justice Thomas indicated that, given the opportunity, he would consider striking down the framework in its entirety.

As a practical matter, the SCOTUS decision provides clarity and uniformity to the standard applied to Title VII claims brought by majority plaintiffs. However, in the Eighth Circuit, which encompasses Iowa’s federal courts, the decision lowers the evidentiary bar for majority plaintiffs bringing Title VII claims. This will make it more difficult for employers to obtain summary judgment on reverse discrimination Title VII claims.

Nyemaster Goode’s Labor & Employment law attorneys have extensive experience advising employers on compliance with and litigating issues under Title VII. Please feel free to contact any member of the team with questions.