On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that all employees, regardless of whether they are part of a minority or majority group, are subject to the same legal standard when bringing claims for workplace discrimination under Title VII. The landmark decision eliminates the heightened “background circumstances” pleading barrier for “majority-group” plaintiffs, such as heterosexual or white workers, that had previously been imposed by several federal appellate courts (6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits) in so-called “reverse” discrimination cases.
Bringing a claim under Title VII
Typically, plaintiffs need only show the following four elements to advance a discrimination claim: (1) they are a member 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 was not a member of the same protected class. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
However, some federal appellate courts previously required majority-group plaintiffs to show “‘background circumstances’ suggesting that the employer discriminates against the majority”, a heightened pleading standard. Farr v. St. Francis Hosp. & Health Ctrs., 570 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2009); Stockwell v. City of Harvey, 597 F.3d 895, 901 (7th Cir. 2010).
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
In Ames, the trial court and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the heightened pleading standard to petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who alleged that she was denied a promotion and later demoted in favor of LGBTQ colleagues.
The Supreme Court rejected that standard, stating that Title VII does not permit courts to impose additional burdens on majority-group plaintiffs. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Court, emphasized: “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.”
As a result of Ames, discrimination claims brought by “majority-group” plaintiffs will now proceed under the same analysis as any other claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework.
What This Means for Employers
With the removal of the additional hurdle from appellate precedent, majority-group employees may be more likely to bring Title VII claims, particularly in disputes involving hiring, promotion, or DEI-related decisions. While the Ames majority decision did not address affirmative action or DEI policies directly, the concurring opinion by Justice Thomas did.
Big picture, employers are encouraged to proactively review internal policies, employment decision-making frameworks, and training protocols to ensure alignment with Title VII’s neutrality. Documentation of hiring and promotion decisions, leadership evaluations, and restructuring justifications remain critical.
We will continue to monitor developments and further workplace-related opinions. For guidance in assessing the implications of this ruling or in responding to a workplace discrimination claim, please contact a member of AGHL’s labor and employment group.
