A few months ago, we published an alert noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The case addresses whether plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII must provide additional evidence — known as "background circumstances" — to support claims that an employer discriminates against majority-group members.

This case should resolve whether majority-group plaintiffs must demonstrate "background circumstances" in addition to the standard elements of a Title VII discrimination claim. The background circumstances test requires majority-group plaintiffs to provide additional evidence suggesting that the employer "is the unusual employer that discriminates against the majority." The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Ames failed to meet this requirement. The Supreme Court’s decision should harmonize the differing standards applied by various circuit courts regarding reverse discrimination claims.

The plaintiff in Ames is a heterosexual woman employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. She alleges that she was passed over for a promotion and subsequently demoted in favor of LGBTQ+ colleagues. Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, and both the district court and the Sixth Circuit ruled against her, applying the background circumstances test. 

Implications for Employers

A ruling in favor of the plaintiff may lower the evidentiary threshold for majority-group plaintiffs alleging discrimination, potentially increasing the number of reverse discrimination claims. Employers should:

• Review Employment Practices: Ensure that all employment decisions are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, supported by clear documentation.
   
• Training: Provide regular training to management and HR personnel on unbiased decision-making and the implications of reverse discrimination claims.
   
• Policy Assessment: Evaluate diversity and inclusion initiatives to confirm they comply with Title VII and do not inadvertently disadvantage majority-group members.

Oral arguments are scheduled for February 26, 2025, with a decision anticipated by June 2025.

You can subscribe to our latest alerts and insights here.