June 12, 2025

Supreme Court Eliminates “Reverse Discrimination”: What HR Leaders Must Know About Ames v. Ohio

A unanimous Supreme Court ruling just changed how employers must handle ALL discrimination claims—here’s what HR leaders need to know for immediate compliance. 

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) unanimously resolved a split among federal courts and dispelled the concept of “reverse discrimination” in its ruling in the landmark case Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The Court held that the framework for evaluating discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) does not vary based on whether a plaintiff belongs to a minority or majority group. 

This ruling eliminates confusion about workplace discrimination laws and creates one unified standard for ALL discrimination claims, requiring immediate attention from HR professionals and business leaders. 

What This Means for Your Organization 

Key Takeaway: The same evidence standards now apply to discrimination complaints from ALL employees, regardless of their group membership. This impacts how you handle hiring, promotions, DEI initiatives, and discrimination investigations. 

Case Overview: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services 

The concept of “reverse discrimination” involves claims by a majority-group individual who contend they were treated less favorably due to efforts to advance historically marginalized groups. 

In Ames, appellant Marlean Ames (who identifies as heterosexual) brought a discrimination lawsuit against her employer of 15 years, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“The Department”). Ames alleged that the Department denied her a promotion for a new management position because of her sexual orientation, selecting a lesbian candidate instead. 

Further, Ames alleged that the Department demoted her to a secretarial position a few days after she interviewed for the management position—resulting in a significant paycut—and replaced her with a gay man. Ames sued the Department, alleging that she was denied promotion and ultimately demoted in violation of Title VII because of her heterosexual orientation. 

The Lower Court Decisions 

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting summary judgment to the Department. The court ruled that Ames had failed to make initial evidence of discriminatory motive under the McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green framework (the standard legal test for discrimination claims). 

The Sixth Circuit reasoned that because Ames was a straight woman, she was required to present evidence of “background circumstances” suggesting that the Department was the rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group. The Sixth Circuit maintained that plaintiffs of a majority group are subject to a heightened evidentiary standard in order to prevail on a Title VII claim. 

The Sixth Circuit’s decision reinforced a Circuit split as to whether majority-group plaintiffs are subject to a different evidentiary burden than minority group plaintiffs, and SCOTUS granted certiorari to resolve that split. 

The Supreme Court’s Unanimous Decision 

SCOTUS in a 9-0 unanimous decision rejected the Circuit’s requirement that majority-group plaintiffs bringing a Title VII claim are subject to a heightened evidentiary standard in order to carry their burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. 

SCOTUS observed that Title VII’s disparate treatment provision (treating someone differently because of their protected characteristics) draws no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision 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.” 

By establishing the same protections for every “individual,” without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group, the Court reasoned that “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.” 

Immediate Action Steps for HR Leaders 

1. Audit Your Current DEI Initiatives and Hiring Practices: Review hiring, promotion, and DEI procedures and materials to ensure they don’t inadvertently disadvantage any group. Verify that all workplace initiatives comply with the unified discrimination standard. 

1. Standardize Documentation and Decision-Making: Document employment decisions thoroughly, showing objective criteria and consistent application across all employee groups. Ensure measurable, job-related qualifications drive all hiring and promotion decisions. 

1. Update Manager Training Programs: Train managers and decision makers to ensure all employment decisions are free from bias and that all actions are defensible under the unified Title VII standard. Emphasize that the same evidence requirements apply to discrimination complaints from ANY employee. 

1. Review Policies and Monitor Trends: Continue to monitor discrimination claim trends and update internal reporting and response strategies. Update employee handbooks to reflect unified anti-discrimination policies. 

Why This Matters Now 

This ruling comes amid increased legal challenges to DEI programs and workplace discrimination policies. Employers who fail to adapt their practices to this unified standard face increased liability risks and potential discrimination claims from all employee groups. 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Q: Does this ruling eliminate DEI programs? A: No. Employers may still have workplace inclusion programs, but care needs to be taken that protected categories are not used to make employment decisions and use consistent standards. 

Q: How does this affect our current discrimination investigation procedures? A: Employers should be aware that a complaint by an employee in the majority (for example, a White, Heterosexual Male) must be taken as seriously as a complaint from a member of an EEO Minority.   

Q: What industries are most affected by this change? A: All employers (with 15 or more employees) are covered by Title VII, including manufacturing, healthcare, technology, and service industries, must ensure compliance with the unified standard. 

Get Expert Guidance 

Kelley Kronenberg’s employment law team closely monitors developments in this area and regularly advises clients on designing and implementing lawful workplace initiatives. Our team can help you audit your current DEI practices and assess your programs and practices in light of the ever-changing legal landscape. 

Got questions? #talktoTalya or #justaskDavid:  

David S. Harvey
Partner, Labor & Employment
Kelley Kronenberg-Tampa, FL
(813) 223-1697
Email
Bio

Talya Haas, Esq.
Practice Partner, Labor & Employment
Kelley Kronenberg-Fort Lauderdale, FL.
(954) 370-9970
Email
Bio