Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which dealt with whether majority-group individuals must meet an additional evidentiary threshold when bringing “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The Supreme Court unanimously answered that question “no,” which could result in an uptick of discrimination claims filed by people who are not part of a “minority” demographic.
In Ames, the plaintiff, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services and applied for a promotion to a managerial position in 2019. She was passed over in favor of a homosexual female candidate. Ames was subsequently demoted, and her original position was filled by a homosexual man. In response, Ames sued for gender (sexual orientation) discrimination.
Under Title VII at the time she sued, a majority‐group plaintiff was normally required to show:
- S/he is a member of a protected class (i.e., race, gender, religion, or national origin);
- S/he is qualified for the role;
- S/he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and
- The circumstances show the employer treated a similarly situated non‑protected individual differently.
Importantly, legal precedent in the jurisdiction where Ames was filed also required a fifth element: majority‑group plaintiffs had to demonstrate “background circumstances” suggesting the employer had a history or predisposition to discriminate against a majority group. This meant Ames had to also show that her employer had a pattern of discriminating against heterosexuals. She did not, so the federal district court dismissed her case. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision because Ames failed to satisfy the “background circumstances” element.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court disagreed, unanimously holding that Title VII presents no legal basis for depriving majority‑group plaintiffs of equal standing. Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, writing for the Court, explained that Title VII’s language strictly prohibits discriminatory actions regardless of the plaintiff’s demographic group, and does not support higher proof requirements for majority‑group plaintiffs. The Court reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Ames has critical implications for employers in Arkansas. The Eighth Circuit, the federal appellate court overseeing Arkansas federal courts, also utilized the “background circumstances” element in reverse discrimination cases. With that element gone, it will be more difficult for employers in Arkansas to secure an early dismissal of reverse discrimination claims, although the ultimate burden of proof will remain the same.
The takeaway is that employers must now navigate Title VII claims without regard to whether the plaintiff belongs to a majority or minority demographic. Employers should ensure they do not unintentionally disadvantage majority-group employees or create perceptions of unfair treatment along demographic lines, particularly if the employer has diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Employers should consult with competent employment counsel to ensure that all personnel decisions are carefully documented based on objective, job-related criteria. Our firm is able to assist with such decisions and is also available to assist with discrimination and harassment litigation, employment policy audits, training programs, and employment strategy reviews in light of this significant ruling. For further guidance, please contact our employment team to discuss how this change might affect your business.