7/9/25 U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Burden of Proof for Non-Minority Plaintiffs

July 9, 2025

By Avery Tunstill & Paula Barran

In a recent opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court revived a lawsuit by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual white woman, against her employer for “reverse discrimination.” Her case gained national attention and sparked conversations about so-called “reverse discrimination claims” and whether a majority-group employee can properly allege discrimination. The Supreme Court made it clear that “reverse discrimination” is discrimination, and majority group members do not have to meet a higher bar to win their case.

Ames’ lawsuit alleged that her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, denied her a promotion because she was heterosexual. However, the lower court dismissed Ames’ lawsuit, reasoning that because the discrimination was based on Ames’ majority status as a heterosexual person, she needed to prove that her employer was an “unusual” one who discriminated against majority-group employees.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision clarifying that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has one standard for all plaintiffs bringing employment discrimination suits; it does not require more or different evidence from a plaintiff who is part of a majority group.

Prior to Ames, some courts required employees who were part of majority groups (such as white and heterosexual employees) to show “background circumstances” to prove their employer discriminated against them on account of their majority status. Plaintiffs could clear the “background circumstances” bar by using, for example, statistical evidence that their employer engaged in a pattern of discrimination against majority-group employees or a pattern of favoritism to minority employees.

In some parts of the country, including the West Coast, federal courts did not require majority-group plaintiffs to prove background circumstances. Thus, the Ames decision may not be a major legal change on the West Coast. But for majority-group plaintiffs in other parts of the country, the Supreme Court’s ruling means they no longer need to prove background circumstances, thus removing a legal hurdle. With the Ames decision, the Supreme Court sent a clear message - discrimination is discrimination regardless of whom it disfavors, as long as that person is in a protected class.

Employers should keep in mind that Ames and the associated media coverage may prompt conversation amongst employees about perceived discrimination based on majority status. Adopting a clear anti-harassment policy, promoting an inclusive work culture, and ensuring that decisions about promotions and pay are based on work performance, can prevent such complaints.

We are here to help. Please contact Paula Barran at 503-276-2143 or pbarran@barran.com, or Avery Tunstill at 503-276-2150 or atunstill@barran.com, or your regular attorney at Barran Liebman if you have any questions.