Legal Trend: More Reverse Discrimination Cases after the Ames Case

In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.  Just this month, I successfully negotiated a six-figure settlement of a reverse discrimination claim, and since I am seeing a real uptick in inquiries about this topic, thought we should provide an update here.

The Court in Ames struck down a rule that for years had made it very difficult to bring “reverse discrimination” cases – the rule that majority groups had a heightened burden of proof in discrimination claims.  They had to prove “background circumstances” showing their employer was the rare kind that discriminates against people like them. Without that, cases were dismissed before any judge ever looked at the facts.

The Ames holding now means that all Title VII plaintiffs now stand on an equal plane. No group faces a higher procedural burden of proof solely because they do not fall into a minority category.

The difference is already visible: reverse discrimination cases that once would have been dismissed are now making it into courtrooms, and they are doing so in all jurisdictions, not just in a select few.

By way of background, Marlean Ames, a longtime employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleged that she was passed over for promotion and later demoted because of her straight sexual orientation. Her former role was filled by a gay man. Ames, who is heterosexual, brought suit under Title VII. The trial court dismissed her case under Sixth Circuit precedent, holding that majority plaintiffs making these claims would have to  show “background circumstances” proving that their employer discriminated against straight people. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this holding, relying on decades of its own “reverse discrimination” case law.

At the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices rejected that standard unanimously. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Court, emphasized the statute’s text: Title VII prohibits discrimination “against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Nothing in the statute, she explained, supports a special burden for plaintiffs based on majority or minority status.

The Ames ruling has changed the ability for all employees to have access to present their evidence and be heard in court. In just a few months, courts across the nation have begun rejecting dismissal arguments based on background circumstances.  Whether you are a man alleging gender discrimination, a heterosexual employee alleging sexual orientation bias, or a Catholic alleging religious discrimination, you are now entitled to the same standard as anyone else.  You must still prove your case, but at least you now have a chance to do so.

Contact us for a free consultation if you believe you have a reverse discrimination claim.