U.S. Supreme Court Eliminates Heightened Standard for Reverse Discrimination Claims
Written By:
Zachary Posess
Gibbons P.C.
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that places reverse discrimination claims on equal footing with traditional discrimination claims under federal law. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025). The plaintiff, a heterosexual woman, claimed her employer denied her a promotion and demoted her on the basis of her sexual orientation. The Sixth Circuit dismissed her claims, finding she had failed to surpass the additional hurdle required in reverse discrimination claims to identify “background circumstances” demonstrating the Ohio Department of Youth Services was the “unusual employer” that discriminates against members of a majority group.
The Supreme Court rejected the “background circumstances” test, which had been adopted by five lower Circuits, and held that majority-group members cannot be subject to a heightened burden of proof because the text of Title VII makes no such distinction. Now, federal judges and agencies can no longer assume that historically disadvantaged groups are more likely to be subject to discrimination in the workplace. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: “By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” The full decision is available here.
Moving forward, we expect that the Ames decision will result in more federal discrimination claims from majority-group members. The ruling also aligns with the Trump administration’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Even before the Ames decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice issued guidance to employees who believe they may be experiencing discrimination related to DEI programs at work, emphasizing that Title VII “applies equally to all racial, ethnic, and national origin groups, as well as both sexes.” By design, most DEI initiatives are intended to provide a benefit to historically disadvantaged groups. We recommend employers seek legal guidance on if and how to maintain these programs in compliance with federal law.
Finally, the ruling in Ames does not necessarily apply to claims of discrimination under state law. For example, New Jersey courts, where most plaintiffs in the state file their employment-related claims, still require plaintiffs to meet a heightened standard of proof to establish a prima facie reverse discrimination claim. See Bergen Commer. Bank v. Sisler, 157 N.J. 188, 218 (1999). However, state courts (including New Jersey’s) frequently defer to the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title VII when evaluating their own anti-discrimination statutes. Therefore, it is possible that New Jersey courts will seek to move toward the Supreme Court’s approach in Ames.