United States Supreme Court Holds Same Standard Must be Applied to Reverse Discrimination Cases as Other Forms of Discrimination

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a Plaintiff alleging reverse discrimination under Title VII be held to the same standard as if they belonged to another suspect class. Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, 2025 U.S. 2198 (2025).

Plaintiff, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various positions since 2004. In 2019, the Department of Youth Services interviewed Ames for a new management position but ultimately hired another candidate, a lesbian woman. The agency subsequently demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator and later hired a homosexual man to fill her role. Ms. Ames file a lawsuit against the Department of Youth Services alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation. The District Court dismissed her claim because it found that Ames failed to meet her prima facie burden of discrimination because she had not shown “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision. Ms. Ames appealed those decisions to the United States Supreme Court arguing that in a reverse discrimination case Courts should apply the same standard for any other case filed under Title VII. The Supreme Court agreed, reversing the dismissal, and remanding the case back to the District Court for adjudication based on the McDonnell Douglas Framework for proving discrimination.

The Ames decision settles a split amongst the Federal Appellate Courts. Prior to this decision, half applied the same standard for proving any other form of discrimination, while the other half added a heightened standard for proving reverse discrimination. The Ames decision sided with the Appellate Courts who found that the same burden of proof is applied for traditional and reverse discrimination suits. The Ames decision makes it easier for Plaintiffs who believe they were reversely discriminated against to seek redress.