On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that reverse discrimination is the same as regular discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This ruling comes as welcome news to employees who have experienced discrimination on the basis of a protected class, even if the employees are part of the “majority group.” In other words, white employees who have been discriminated against based on their race or straight employees who have been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation can bring claims based on the same standard as the standard that applies to black employees or gay employees.
Why did the Supreme Court rule this way?
Reverse Discrimination Cases Have Required a Heightened Standard of Proof by Employees
I first wrote about this case back in November 2024 at the time that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. [Read more: Heightened Proof for Discrimination Against the Majority] The Court ultimately held oral arguments in February 2025. Throughout the process, the issue remained the same for the Court to decide: Does Title VII require members of a majority group to meet a heightened (higher) standard of proof of discrimination for what are commonly called “reverse discrimination” cases?
Based solely on the words of Title VII, the answer is a clear NO. Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of a protected category (race, national origin, religion, and sex), period. If you are treated differently because you are straight, then that is still discrimination on the basis of sex/sexual orientation, just as it would be if you are treated differently because you are gay. It’s true that discrimination cases against straight employees are historically not as common as those against gay employees, but they certainly do happen. The problem arose, however, when judges in certain federal circuits around the country decided on their own that, actually, majority employees have to prove a HEIGHTENED level of discrimination in order to succeed at trial. In other words, not only do you have to show that the company discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, you also have to prove what judges called “additional background circumstances.” You would have to show that either the discriminatory decision was made by a gay person OR that there was statistical evidence of this type of discrimination occurring across the board. This requirement is nowhere in the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The Supreme Court Ruled In Favor of Ms. Ames
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Ms. Ames was a straight employee who was passed over for promotion several times in favor of less qualified and less experienced gay employees. The evidence was sufficient to prove discrimination, but the discriminatory decision was made by a straight manager and there was not other statistical evidence. Thus, she lost at the district trial court level. She appealed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Ms. Ames, holding that the lower court’s use of the “background circumstances” test was improper and not in line with the text of Title VII. Moving forward, the federal circuits will no longer apply that test for “reverse discrimination” cases, meaning that all employees will have to prove the same burden in their lawsuits. Ms. Ames, for her part, will have her case sent back down to the trial court, where she will move forward with her lawsuit and potentially with her trial.
Takeaways for South Carolina Employees
For South Carolina employees, it’s important to remember that any discrimination against an employee on the basis of a protected category is illegal. This includes age, race, sex, national origin, religion, and disability. The federal antidiscrimination laws are for everyone, and everyone is entitled to a workplace free of illegal discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
If you have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace, please feel free to reach out to our office for a consultation regarding your circumstances and legal options. You can contact us at 864-233-4351 or via our Contact us Page.
