SCOTUS Just Made it Easier for Employees to Bring “Reverse Discrimination” Lawsuits

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Sixth Circuit’s rule, which required plaintiffs of a majority group to satisfy an additional burden as part of establishing a prima facie case of Title VII discrimination. This rule required majority group members (e.g., white employees suing for race discrimination, heterosexual employees suing for sexual orientation discrimination) to establish “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”[1] The Supreme Court rejected this rule, holding that it fell outside the scope of Tile VII’s plain text, case precedent and imposed an unfair burden on majority-group plaintiffs by subjecting them to a heightened evidentiary standard.

The case comes from a lawsuit filed by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, a lesbian woman was hired instead of Ames for a new management position. Ames was subsequently demoted, and a gay man was hired in her place. Ames filed suit alleging sexual orientation discrimination on the basis of her status as a heterosexual woman. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment for the agency, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that Ames failed to establish background circumstances in response to the department’s motion for summary judgment.

The Supreme Court’s recently issued opinion relied on the text of Title VII, which the Court stated draws no distinction between majority or minority-group plaintiffs. The text states, it is unlawful to “fail or refuse to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual…because of [their] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”[2] By establishing protections for every individual, without specifying membership to a minority or majority group, the Court held that Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements solely for majority-group plaintiffs. Based on this analysis, the Court determined the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on a plaintiff’s membership in a minority or majority group.

With this update, employers in the Sixth Circuit should consider potential exposure to reverse discrimination claims and ensure policies regarding diversity, equity and inclusion are compliant with Title VII.

Dinsmore’s employment law practice group works closely with employers to shape policies regarding diversity, equity and inclusion that foster inclusive workplaces while also mitigating risk of litigation. Our team also defends employers of all sizes against claims under Title VII and other employment statutes in courts across the country.