Supreme Court rejects higher bar for reverse bias claims

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the landscape for employment discrimination litigation by unanimously ruling there should be no higher evidentiary standard for a “reverse discrimination” employment claim. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a heterosexual woman who had been employed for roughly 15 years by the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) claimed she had been passed over for a promotion and demoted to a lower position than her current one, with both positions being filled by members of the LGBTQ+ community. These claims formed the basis of her allegation that she had suffered employment discrimination based on her identifying as heterosexual. After filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Ames filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against DYS, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Before the June 5 decision, the law in many jurisdictions was that “majority-group” employees, like Ames (e.g., white or heterosexual), had to show additional “background circumstances” in addition to the sufficiency standards required to sustain a discrimination claim. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the “background circumstances” rule, deciding that members of a “majority group” don’t have to meet a different, higher evidentiary standard in employment discrimination claims.

Court required higher burden for reverse discrimination claims

Ames filed her lawsuit against DYS under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and lower courts granted dismissal in favor of DYS, ruling that a heterosexual female plaintiff must prove adequate “background circumstances” to establish her claim of reverse sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. Consistent with the previous legal standard, the appellate court stated that plaintiffs like Ames must demonstrate evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (in this case, a member of the LGBTQ+ community) made the employment decision at issue or have statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group.

Typically, employees need to show the following to advance a claim under Title VII:

1. They are members of a protected class,
2. They were subject to an adverse employment decision,
3. They were qualified for the relevant position, and
4. Their employer treated more favorably a similarly qualified person who wasn’t a member of the same protected class.

In its Ames decision, the Supreme Court makes clear that Title VII makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to 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 origin.” The Ames ruling clarifies that Title VII applies the same protections to everyone, regardless of whether they’re members of a minority or majority group.

Implications of Ames for workplace policies and compliance

With the evidentiary burden for “reverse discrimination” claims now lowered, an uptick in workplace discrimination claims brought by majority-group employees is expected. Employers are encouraged to review their practices, policies, and internal complaints process to ensure they comply with Title VII’s uniform standard. When considering any employment decision, employers should assess the impact on all employees, not just ones involving those who are members of protected classes. At bottom, employers should ensure policies are applied consistently and don’t inadvertently disadvantage any particular group. It’s also critical to provide training for HR personnel and other members of management on unbiased decision-making and to educate the entire workforce on how equal employment opportunity laws apply to all employees.

Executive order prompts reevaluation of DEI practices

In line with the Ames decision, employers are also encouraged to evaluate their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. In March 2025, the EEOC and Department of Justice (DOJ) issued technical assistance documents in response to Executive Order (EO) 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which went into effect on January 20, 2025. EO 14151 orders federal agencies to terminate all DEI-related offices and positions, action plans, initiatives, programs, grants, or contracts and DEI-related performance requirements for employees, contractors, or grantees.

In its March guidance, the EEOC advised it doesn’t recognize a theory of “reverse discrimination,” noting there’s “only discrimination.” The EEOC is still statutorily required to investigate all private sector Title VII charges of workplace discrimination presented to it in the administrative process, and like the Ames ruling, it doesn’t require a higher showing of proof for reverse discrimination claims.

A resource document is available on BLR’s HR Hero® to assist employers in interpreting the EEOC’s technical assistance documents issued on March 19, 2025; “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work”; and the question-and-answer technical assistance document “What You should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work”.