The Supreme Court issued a unanimous employment law decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their membership in a majority or minority group. The decisive Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s imposition of a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination.
As covered in Dykema’s March 2025 issue, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, filed suit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Ames had served in various roles within the Department and applied for a management position. Her supervisor, a gay woman, selected another gay woman for the role. Shortly thereafter, Ames was demoted and replaced by a gay man.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Department, a decision later affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. The lower courts reasoned that Ames failed to satisfy the “background circumstances” requirement—a judicially created standard made applicable to only plaintiffs alleging so-called “reverse discrimination,” i.e., discrimination against members of a majority group.
The Supreme Court firmly rejected that approach. Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, emphasized that Title VII protects “any individual” from discrimination, with no basis in the statute for imposing different evidentiary burdens or standards based on group identity. “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” she wrote.
The Court clarified that Title VII’s framework requires flexibility in the early stages of litigation and that the “background circumstances” requirement improperly forced certain plaintiffs—namely, majority-group members—to meet a higher threshold. That, the Court observed, is inconsistent with the statute and its purpose.
The ruling eliminates the distinction between discrimination and “reverse discrimination” in Title VII jurisprudence, reaffirming that all discrimination claims must be evaluated under a uniform legal standard.
Concurrence: Skepticism of Judicial Frameworks
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred with the judgment but used the occasion to critique the broader architecture of Title VII litigation. He took aim at both the “background circumstances” test and the well-established McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, suggesting that the Court should be prepared to reconsider or eliminate such judge-made doctrines in a future case.
Notable Commentary on DEI
In a footnote to his concurrence, Justice Thomas voiced strong disapproval of corporate and governmental diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. He characterized the now-rejected heightened standard for majority group discrimination as a reflection of an “obsession” with DEI and argued that such programs have led to “overt discrimination” against majority groups. His commentary echoes prior critiques and may signal continued judicial scrutiny of DEI-related policies and affirmative action in the post-Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) landscape. Recall that Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence in the SFFA decision could be read as the proverbial handwriting on the wall for Title VII. He opined in his SFFA concurrence that there is no daylight between affirmative action in the Title VI and Title VII contexts, as Congress cut the two out of the same statutory cloth. That concurrence was joined by Justice Thomas.
In a similar vein, this case is notable in that it directly builds off of the Court’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), which held that Title VII applied to LGBTQ plaintiff claims of discrimination. Without that holding, the present Court may not have been able to find discrimination on the basis of heterosexuality. It makes sense, then, that Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, both of whom dissented in the Bostock case, joined the majority in vacating the Sixth Circuit’s decision in this matter.
Takeaways
- One-Size-Fits-All Standards: The Court confirmed that Title VII provides the same protections and evidentiary standards for all individuals, regardless of whether they are part of a majority or minority group.
- End of the ‘Reverse Discrimination’ Distinction: The term “reverse discrimination” holds no legal weight under Title VII; courts must assess all discrimination claims uniformly.
- Implications for DEI Programs: Justice Thomas’s concurrence suggests potential future challenges to DEI frameworks, building off concurrences in prior decisions, as courts continue to assess their legality in light of evolving equal protection and civil rights jurisprudence.
For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, or Christopher Sakauye. A special thanks to Summer Associate Sasha Codiga for assisting with this post.