Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) handed down its unanimous ruling in the case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. In this case the Plaintiff was a white heterosexual woman who alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation and sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ames was an employee of the Department and was demoted from her position as Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act and denied a promotion to Bureau Chief of Quality. She was replaced in her role by a gay man and the Bureau Chief position was filled by a gay woman. 

This case was on appeal from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Michigan) which was decided on in 2023. The Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision that required the Plaintiff, being from the majority, to use a higher standard of proof to show illegal employment discrimination. The Sixth Circuit ruled that for a member of a majority group to prove discrimination, they must first address the "background circumstances" suggesting that the defendant is an uncommon employer that discriminates against the majority. This different approach comes from a 1981 case out of the D.C. Court of Appeals.

The Sixth Circuit ruled that the Plaintiff in this case failed to show background circumstances that proves the Ohio Department had a bias against the majority – in this case a white heterosexual woman. Five appellate jurisdictions have issued similar rulings, resolving the conflict with jurisdictions that had not adopted a higher evidentiary standard for majority group plaintiffs.

In this case, Ms. Ames alleged she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay man and later terminated to be replaced by a gay woman. She noted that her supervisor was also a gay woman. However, the Sixth Circuit ruled that Ms. Ames failed to demonstrate background circumstances indicating bias against heterosexual white women, as she could not establish any tendency or prejudice to support her discrimination claim.

In a decision that continues to swing Constitutional law back toward equal protection under the law. SCOTUS explains in their decision that Title VII’s plain text reading does not distinguish between majority group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Going on, the Court states Title VII makes it unlawful to “fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national group. (Emphasis added).”

The Court ruled that Title VII provides the “same protection for every ‘individual’ – without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group…”

This decision continues SCOTUS’s swinging back of its Constitutional law interpretations in recent years as it has also challenged affirmative action and other programs and policies that were intended to remedy discrimination by leveling the playing field for minorities.

That said, employers should continue to ensure all employees are treated  the same without regards to a protected characteristic. This means reviewing “DEI” programs, management and supervisory training, and being sure not to evaluate legal risk solely based upon minority-group status.

Employers should understand that majority-group employees cannot be treated different than minority-group employees.

Sources:

Lexology, BREAKING: SCOTUS Overules Higher Standard for Majority-Group Asserting Bias Claims. (6/5/2025).

Lexology. Supreme Court Makes It Easier for “Majority Group” Plaintiffs to Sue for Discrimination (6/5/2025)

EPTW. Is There Really Reverse Discrimination Today or Just Discrimination? (2/2025)